Replying to Avatar jimbocoin 🃏

I am now, selfishly, 100% FOR a #Bitcoin covenant soft-fork.

Why? Because we need to expand the number of people who can have UTXOs (covenants enable sharing).

Why expand? Because if we don’t, then people will use custodial alternatives (banks). We already see this starting.

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

Who cares? I do. Paper BTC dilutes the value of my Bitcoin. If you like NGU, you should care too.

Covenants => more key holders => less printing => higher value.
Avatar
SUPERMAX 1y ago

Controversy ensue here but I like your reasoning

What is it, only 80M or 100M UTXO's can exist? Something like that

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
jimbocoin 🃏 1y ago

In the fullness of time, the size of the UTXO set is probably unbounded.

This is about getting more people to be able to hold keys and be able to settle to chain in any given fixed time period. We do this by increasing the density of data encoded in transactions.

SegWit and Taproot represented similar density improvements. Increasing data density is how we preserve decentralization while scaling participation.

When we don’t scale participation, we get inflation by custodians.

Avatar
SUPERMAX 1y ago

As long as its a soft-fork which we vet thoroughly and understand the upgrade I'm all for it