#vlog 23
Why I'm Against Covenants
https://blossom.primal.net/29e096bb6acdef0b6cb8fb974712a60048a41e21c9796ad971aa0a43b37fe72a.mov
Discussion
1 sat/vB. Iām not familiar of these āusersā of which youāre referring to. I think devs are expecting people to self custody, but theyāre only here for ngu. Who woulda thunk??
this is the mindset I would like core devs to have. Even though i think something like "vaults" (op_vault?) could be beneficial for users but maybe it could be done without covenants.
I 100ā agree with this sentiment & position.
It extends not just to new features but also "fixing" existing features. I don't like how BIPs are used to articulate & propose both new features as well as fixes/maintenance.
I'm glad someone is talking about this. In my mind taproot was a lesson in being more careful about what is prioritised & the unintended consequences that any change introduces.
As a Bitcoin user (node runner), the only use case that I think is worth pursuing is onchain privacy.
sometimes the most revolutionary act is leaving well enough alone. your node, your rules.
Makes sense. Iām not interested in Covenants until thereās clear, undeniable evidence of their benefits. And letās not forget this change is being aggressively peddled by clowns like Shinobi, Lopp and David Bailey. They claim CTV will make Bitcoin ābetter money,ā yet they spent two years mocking the pro-filter crowd who were trying to cut down on spam - the very thing degrading Bitcoinās role as a monetary network.
Most pro-filter people now run Knots, and many of them wonāt support anything coming from the same side that ridiculed them instead of joining forces to fix the problem sooner. A lot of bad blood piled up in 2024, especially when the retarded sandwichheads were reply-bombing every thread and personās tweet calling for Core to repair the broken filters. Iām not on Twitter anymore, but Iād bet nothing has changed.
That was their biggest mistake - ignoring Knots adoption as it climbed to unprecedented levels. It shows that most of the pro-CTV camp are blind to second-order effects, clueless about economics, and naive about the potential social fallout of being arrogant pricks. Makes you wonder what other blind spots they might haveā¦ risk wise.
Covenants in general is orthogonal to Knots vs Core and the filter conversation. Luke Dash Jr specifically called CTV out as a low risk improvement to Bitcoin.
https://primal.net/e/nevent1qqstacvsnlpj08ldascctk0scpt8lz92zl59eeyud75agz8xr025ugsd3r864
I disagree thatās orthogonal. CTV is about increasing monetary density on L1. The spam filter debate is about spam txs crowding out monetary txs on L1, thus reducing its capacity. So the aim of both is to make L1 more efficient for the monetary usecase.
nostr:nprofile1qqs8k0mcqd6sw3h524qn5gslszt9am9knmes3uh268dgnnpv3yfwj6qpzamhxue69uhky6t5vdhkjmn9wgh8xmmrd9skctcppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0tus3pe nailed it.
Majority of plebs don't want any upgrades anymore because they are so sick and tired with these scammers and spammers spamming the bitcoin.
Plebs want to fix the filter, remove witness discount and also want small blocksize.
Do not activate something in advance without real end user demand. That would be considered pure FIAT MOVE.
Developers might have less incentive to see Bitcoin as a money than 80IQ plebs because there is a good chance that 80IQ plebs might own more bitcoin than some of these commie core devs.
OSSIFY UNTIL SPAMMERS, SCAMMERS AND COMMIE CORE DEVS RAGE QUIT...!!!
#RunKnots
#ObliterateCore
100% agree with everything you said.
fukin' based
Just maintain the software. If they want to create all these new features then go work on solana
Pumping out Vlogs like candy. I canāt keep up. Just rolled out my 9th. Great work brother
Jimmy Song thinks you shouldn't touch his SoV to make it easier to actually USE?!
I'm shocked š
Well explained. I agree.
But regarding Taproot, this is great for privacy (lightning and multisig). But the development of new software is extremely slow..
Jimmy perfectly explains how I've felt about covenants since I've first heard of them.
Covenants are just not that interesting for anything that I need, or that any bitcoiner that I know needs. Bitcoin is working perfectly as it is. It's securing our financial future. Any changes must be extremely necessary.
Thank you Jimmy!
#covenants #CTV
If you support covenants, you're not a bitcoiner, but a shitcoiner that wants Bitcoin to look like ethereum.
Covenants enable one thing, delegation to centralized apps, centralized apps that can only be used to mis-represent themselves as Bitcoin, generate swap-fees, and conduct surveillance through coordination services and aforementioned swaps.
Sure, these things happen now, but if they are succesful in getting their shitfork activated it'll lend them undue credibility with unsophisticated users that will be hurt.
Bitcoin becoming more like ethereum has no upside, it's just high time preference degenerate behavior that creates systemic risks should any of these Fake L2's grow in size.
It's now these fake, surveillance prone, dark-funded subchains that are directing development priorities among both Core and Knots... a true tragedy of the commons unlike Bitcoin has ever seen.
Jimmy good, more people should think critically like Jimmy.
