Please, enlighten me. Why would #covenants not enable the capabilities I have described? Ad hominem attacks aren’t going to convince the plebs.
Discussion
I'm not attacking your character (ad hominem) or anything else. I'm not trying to convince the plebs of anything.
You are saying you are surprised there's no outrage about a topic you only "cursorily researched". That's funny and ironic based on your nym. That's the extent of my reply.
If you want me to explain my lack of outrage, one rebuttal would be that no one can lock my bitcoin into a covenant. You'd have to lock your own bitcoin into a covenant. You sign the transaction with your key. So yea, don't do that.
True no one can lock your #Bitcoin into a #covenant but are you not concerned for the value of your bitcoins that an ever growing share of the supply will be forcibly KYCed? With convenants, every Bitcoin that at one point touches a regulated entity (centralized exchange, ETF, miner, MicroStrategy, etc) will become a KYCed Bitcoin forever.
Yes, BIP-119 and similar proposals are an extreme threat to Bitcoin's use as a permissionless network. It can be implemented with a soft-fork so probably it will happen in time. Eventually this tech can and probably will be used to manage whitelisted addresses, combined with AML regulations.
In time it will be both illegal and technically impossible to send bitcoin to any address not whitelisted by western banking regulators.
If you need to hide your money, use Monero. If you can use KYC'ed money then Bitcoin will remain a durable store of value.