Nostr Web Client

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

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Jeff 1y ago

You've said a lot of stuff based on "cursory research" - ironically a logical flaw - which is what was surprising to me from a nym titled "logicallyMinded" 😂

LogicallyMinded 1y ago

Please, enlighten me. Why would #covenants not enable the capabilities I have described? Ad hominem attacks aren’t going to convince the plebs.

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.

LogicallyMinded 1y ago

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

Slipstream 1y ago

How so?