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.