@robin_linus ‘A co-signing server trusted by the recipient.’
Congratulations, you just reinvented PayPal using a 2-of-2 multisig.
You are asking users to beg a server for ‘pre-signed change exits’, praying the server doesn’t equivocate, and calling it a protocol. It’s not a protocol. It’s an interpretive, permissioned spreadsheet.
While you are doing interactive off-chain gymnastics to simulate safety, we are enforcing absolute L1 bivalence. With TUSM, there is no ‘trusted co-signer’ enforcing policy. The math enforces the policy. The Taproot address is the state. The covenant is the consensus.
If your asset needs a human-maintained server to prevent a double-spend, you don’t have an asset. You have an illusion. .simf fixes this. Simplicity always win