Makes sense. I’m not interested in Covenants until there’s clear, undeniable evidence of their benefits. And let’s not forget this change is being aggressively peddled by clowns like Shinobi, Lopp and David Bailey. They claim CTV will make Bitcoin “better money,” yet they spent two years mocking the pro-filter crowd who were trying to cut down on spam - the very thing degrading Bitcoin’s role as a monetary network.

Most pro-filter people now run Knots, and many of them won’t support anything coming from the same side that ridiculed them instead of joining forces to fix the problem sooner. A lot of bad blood piled up in 2024, especially when the retarded sandwichheads were reply-bombing every thread and person’s tweet calling for Core to repair the broken filters. I’m not on Twitter anymore, but I’d bet nothing has changed.

That was their biggest mistake - ignoring Knots adoption as it climbed to unprecedented levels. It shows that most of the pro-CTV camp are blind to second-order effects, clueless about economics, and naive about the potential social fallout of being arrogant pricks. Makes you wonder what other blind spots they might have… risk wise.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Covenants in general is orthogonal to Knots vs Core and the filter conversation. Luke Dash Jr specifically called CTV out as a low risk improvement to Bitcoin.

https://primal.net/e/nevent1qqstacvsnlpj08ldascctk0scpt8lz92zl59eeyud75agz8xr025ugsd3r864

I disagree that’s orthogonal. CTV is about increasing monetary density on L1. The spam filter debate is about spam txs crowding out monetary txs on L1, thus reducing its capacity. So the aim of both is to make L1 more efficient for the monetary usecase.