Want to learn more about Covenants and OP_CTV and why these are so important for bitcoin?

Checkout the links below:

-Why Bitcoin Needs Covenants by nostr:npub17u5dneh8qjp43ecfxr6u5e9sjamsmxyuekrg2nlxrrk6nj9rsyrqywt4tp

https://blog.casa.io/why-bitcoin-needs-covenants/

-How CTV Can Help Scale Bitcoin by nostr:npub1xapjgsushef5wwn78vac6pxuaqlke9g5hqdfjlanky3uquh0nauqx0cnde

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/how-ctv-can-help-scale-bitcoin

Further reading:

Use cases: https://utxos.org/uses

Demos: https://utxos.org/resources/

CTV Proposals: https://lnhance.org

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

prove it on shit coins. how dare you try to put millions of lives at risk by upgrading a plane while it's in the air. insanely reckless

NACK

I've said before that a working litecoin covenant wallet would put a lot of concerns to rest

No. Bitcoin is software, it must be upgraded for security and scaling purposes. It's not even close to being finished yet.

It's not bitcoin's fault that you didn't understand this when you put your money in it.

If upgrades scare you then you should have your money in a bank where you can have your hand nicely held.

🫂 do some research before having opinions

- Potential for Spam Transactions

While OP_CTV is designed to create more efficient transaction types, there's a risk that it could be misused to generate spam transactions, potentially clogging the network1. Adversaries might exploit this to conduct denial-of-service attacks on the Bitcoin network.

- Recursive Covenant Concerns

Although OP_CTV itself is non-recursive, its implementation could potentially enable the creation of complex scripts that lead to recursive covenants2. This could result in transactions that reference each other in circular chains, consuming network resources and causing scalability issues.

- Fragmentation of the Ecosystem

There's a risk that OP_CTV could lead to the creation of "walled gardens" within the Bitcoin ecosystem1. This could potentially fragment the network, with certain transactions only permitted within specific parameters, departing from Bitcoin's open and permissionless nature.

All of this is objectively factually bullshit.

stinks like a gpt

This was written by chatgpt.

OP_CTV doesn’t improve on the 1-UTXO-per-user scaling limit

Source: https://petertodd.org/2024/covenant-dependent-layer-2-review

Peter is wrong.

As usual

Peter is wrong plus you get alot more features with CTV than just utxo sharing.

Leaning toward a desire to see useful implementations on liquid first

Hard to do testing on Liquid since it's such a different codebase than bitcoin and hardly anyone uses it. This is why we have a testnet (now called signet) on bitcoin.

Still wish Casa would drop support for ethereum. A mistake for their reputation

Proposal looks good. The evil attack scenario was what stopped previous proposed covenants