I am tacitly with you. Proponents of covenants however are absolutely fukn awful at explaining their case.

They don’t even seem to understand who they are trying to sell the idea to.

Bitcoin can’t be led by such people if it is to grow which we both agree it must.

“So what? Banks (pegged shitcoins, eCash, etc.) WILL print in excess of reserves. This always happens.”

This is the wrong framing entirely.

Covenants need their own positive framing, not a negative one opposed to the risks of alternatives.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

The positive framing is NGU. Without densifying, people will use custody solutions which will inflate and thus dilute.

No, absolutely disagree.

NGU is most interesting to those red blood cells who come and go every cycle.

nostr:note1mu9h4llx7n3tj99hpjk2w7q5kyn2p5d88fzw5z0jt6adnxq9gyfsmq93za

The positive framing needs to be directed to economic noderunners, those with skin in the game.

If we want covenants, then noderunners need to be convinced why we need it, why it won’t hurt them (ossify camp), and what the benefits are.

The Devs proposing it are beyond clueless. I’d go so far as to call them retarded. I doubt a single one of them has even read Dale Carnegie which is the absolute basics for persuasion.

Covenants are going nowhere because it’s proponents suck balls at convincing others why it’s necessary