Discussion
😂🤣🤣🤣 I need to make a TikTok now
We need to ridicule all ideas that attempt to subvert #Bitcoin.
😂👌
😂
Only 5? I thought it was all of them
Whats OP_CTV?
OP is short for Operation. An OP is a unit of functionality in the Bitcoin script language. There are OPs for things like “does this signature match”.
CTV stands for Check Template Verify. Broadly, when an OP code has Verify in its name, it will cause the entire script to fail if the condition is not met.
Check Template means that the condition checks whether the output of the proposed spending transaction matches pre-specified valid outputs (that is, a pre-specified Template). This would allow transactions to stipulate how an output can be spent.
Currently there is no way to put restrictions (covenants) on where spent outputs can go. Enabling OP_CTV on Bitcoin would require a soft-fork (like SegWit and Taproot did). https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/op_checktemplateverify/
Maybe I'm missing something. Why would I want to restrict what they can do with spent outputs? So I 'A' pay 'B' with the stipulation that B can only send that output to 'C'?
To help secure funds against hacks and physical attacks
Seems to me this would lead to some nasty restrictions. Like what's to stop an exchange from only allowing sending coin off the exchange with the restriction that it can only be sent to your address or back to the exchange. Seens like something Elizabeth Warren would drool over.
That's why I feel I must be missing some point to this proposal
You’re right that OP_CTV provides a possible new avenue for restricting spending freedom. The counterpoint commonly voiced is that it would already be possible today for exchanges to place restrictions that have the same effect—specifically, an exchange could demand that recipient addresses are N-of-M multisig addresses where the customer does not have quorum.
My own argument would be that exchanges employing such restrictions would lose business to exchanges that did not. For example, Robinhood sells “Bitcoin” but, to my knowledge, it does not allow customers to withdraw at all. So it gets none of the business of customers who wish to withdraw to self custody.
Having said all of that, I am not an avid OP_CTV proponent. I did support SegWit and Taproot, because I understood how they benefitted me personally. I am staunchly against BIP300 (Drivechains) because they don’t benefit me and the risks are understated by proponents.
On OP_CTV, I perceive neither great benefits nor risks to myself, and so, at least for now, I’m leaning towards “against” on the grounds of if-it-ain’t-broke-don’t-fix-it. I’m open to further arguments however.
Did further reading. Still not sure how I feel about this. First thought is it could reduce btc's fungibility with some of the use cases mentioned at the link you posted. Anyhow
Nobody has ever think about that :
"In this document, Buterin outlined many innovations that would set Ethereum apart from other cryptocurrencies and explained how Ethereum would let developers use blockchain tools such as smart contracts to build dApps (decentralized applications). The introduction of self-executing smart contract code helped expand the possibilities for blockchain technology. Instead of solely using blockchain to record financial transactions, Ethereum set out to decentralize the internet. "
*ps: wrongdoers cant create, they always do the same schemes over and over since the creaction. This scheme is well known.
This i can get behind
I laughed ridiculously hard at this.
Irony is palpable
😂😂😂
Fuck the government covenant.... dumbasses
For your safety
🤔🤔
i would like a 50% share of your received zaps thank you