Global Feed Post Login
Replying to Avatar LogicallyMinded

I’m surprised there is no more outrage from bitcoiners regarding #covenants. After doing a cursory research on the topic, it seems that covenants would mean the end of permissionless #Bitcoin and the generalization of #KYC-ed #BTC.

- Covenants can enforce spending outputs to KYCed addresses only.

- Covenants can enforce receiving BTC from KYCed addresses only

- #Covenant rules applied to a given output would propagate to future spending of this output.

In short, all BTC leaving a regulated entity could only be spend to KYCed addresses forever.

Maybe I missed it, but I haven’t seen the plebs being outrage about this risk for Bitcoin. I heard a lot more criticism about #drivechains though. This tell me that some of the vocal opposition is either controlled opposition or uninformed.

#OPCAT #OPCTV #drivechain

Avatar
Slipstream 1y ago

You can already do this attack with a 2 of 2 multisig where one party is the government. You need their permission every time you transact, and will only approve transfers to another 2 of 2.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
LogicallyMinded 1y ago

True, but this mechanism isn’t as flexible as what would be allowed with recursive covenants.

Avatar
Slipstream 1y ago

How so?

Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed