Seems to me this would lead to some nasty restrictions. Like what's to stop an exchange from only allowing sending coin off the exchange with the restriction that it can only be sent to your address or back to the exchange. Seens like something Elizabeth Warren would drool over.
That's why I feel I must be missing some point to this proposal
You’re right that OP_CTV provides a possible new avenue for restricting spending freedom. The counterpoint commonly voiced is that it would already be possible today for exchanges to place restrictions that have the same effect—specifically, an exchange could demand that recipient addresses are N-of-M multisig addresses where the customer does not have quorum.
My own argument would be that exchanges employing such restrictions would lose business to exchanges that did not. For example, Robinhood sells “Bitcoin” but, to my knowledge, it does not allow customers to withdraw at all. So it gets none of the business of customers who wish to withdraw to self custody.
Having said all of that, I am not an avid OP_CTV proponent. I did support SegWit and Taproot, because I understood how they benefitted me personally. I am staunchly against BIP300 (Drivechains) because they don’t benefit me and the risks are understated by proponents.
On OP_CTV, I perceive neither great benefits nor risks to myself, and so, at least for now, I’m leaning towards “against” on the grounds of if-it-ain’t-broke-don’t-fix-it. I’m open to further arguments however.
