OP_CAT enables recursive covenants https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-February/019976.html
Reject CATs as-is.
Discussion
Sry dawg, but this take is so bad I must unfollow. All the best.
I'll really miss your insightful commentary and compelling arguments
Should have mentioned that it doesn't *by itself* enable recursive covenants (at least to my knowledge), but it can be combined with others (such as the proposed OP_TLUV opcode in the email thread) to implement them.
Why do you reject covenants?
I don't reject covenants, I reject *recursive* covenants for the reasons explained in the email (not me, someone far more intelligent):
> Generally, it is accepted that recursive covenants, together with the
ability to update loop variables, is sufficiently powerful to be
considered Turing-complete.
> ...
> I point out here that Drivechains is implementable on a Turing-complete
language.
> And we have already rejected Drivechains, for the following reason:
>
> 1. Sidechain validators and mainchain miners have a strong incentive to merge their businesses.
> 2. Mainchain miners end up validating and commiting to sidechain blocks.
> 3. Ergo, sidechains on Drivechains become a block size increase.