Oh I see whatdunnit and fully agree 😂

Good question. First, a point of order: Taproot did not enable Ordinals. Ordinals were first invented in 2012 under the name “colored coins”. Ordinals is just a rebrand of an old idea using modern OP codes.

From the perspective of regular users like us, Ordinal transactions are merely space-inefficient. That is, they use way more block space than strictly necessary to transfer sats. Wasting block space is possible no matter what features are enabled/removed.

But then again, waste is in the eye of the beholder. A multisig transaction uses more block space than a single sig transaction. From the single sig enjoyer’s perspective, multisig users are wasting block space.

Whether transactions are block-space efficient or not, they must be FEE-efficient. Every transaction, to be mined at all, must outcompete lower-fee transactions. Block space is pay-to-play.

And thankfully so! The fee market is what keeps Bitcoin censorship resistant. A censored party can increase their offered fee until it’s irresistible to some miner to take. Miners that censor pay for their prejudice in lost revenue.

So having said all that, your question is whether covenants, while designed to increase space efficiency, could be used to instead to create space-inefficient transactions (Ordinals, etc.). I must admit that since any feature of Bitcoin’s locking script could be used inefficiently, it stands to reason that someone could use covenant OP codes in this way.

Would an Ordinal developer be likely to do so? My guess would be “no”, because there are better (less inefficient) ways of encoding their garbage than trying to shoehorn a covenant OP for this purpose.

After listening to Shinobi a while back on a podcast, I came to understand that covenants allow denser use of block space (sharing UTXOs) and that without this, people holding keys on chain would necessarily be a minority of users.

In such a world, as more people want to use Bitcoin, they’ll have to fall back on custodial solutions. I heard Francis of Bull Bitcoin talking on a pod about Liquid being a possible solution. I’ve heard Livera talk about fedimints. I’ve seen people using eCash lately. People buying into ETFs. etc. etc.

We must not give up on peer-to-peer cash. If we cede to banks, we’re guaranteed to get diluted by IOUs and risk centralization (as happened with fiat currency).

We can’t stop people from using custodians. But if we don’t continue to densify, we guarantee that they will.

The fork that I want is to decrease the drumbeat of new coins (there is nothing perfect about the number 21 million) ... would be a genuine curveball to bankster-ism ... but it won't happen

Your keys, your coins, both with and without covenants. Your addresses encode your spending conditions—the spending conditions you opted into (single sig, multisig, etc.) None of the covenant proposals alter this.

What covenants allow is construction of an address that pays out to pre-specified list of one or more other addresses. So someone who owes you coin could wrap it in an address that aggregates coins to you and others. That’s the point of it, in fact, to create density so that more than one beneficiary can share a UTXO.

Whether you accept this as payment is up to you.

On the question of whether an adversary could use covenants maliciously. Current multisig would be a better adversarial tool. That is, adversary sends the coin to a 2-of-3 where your address is just one, so you have to get permission from another signer to spend. You would be within your rights to refuse this as “payment” since you’re not in full control of the coin. (I would refuse)

If a State wanted to enact spending controls, inserting themselves as signers in multisig is superior to trying to negotiate covenant addresses that encode spending criteria. With the multisig, they can approve or withhold approval arbitrarily over time. With a covenant, they’d have to decide up front how the coin could be spent and work with you to create that script. An adversarial despot would much prefer the flexibility and ease-of-use of mandatory multisig.

For this reason, on the point of adversarial encumbrance, I do not see any of the proposals to be worse than the status quo.

Be the persuasion you want to see in the world. Don’t others to change.

Coinbase is historically bad at adopting technology that’s good for them. Look how long it took them to batch transactions. They’re only just now starting to implement Lightning. Even after CTV activates, I wouldn’t expect Coinbase to take advantage for years.

The burning need is to start building consensus on a UASF. This will take time. It is not prudent to wait until there’s a “burning need” to get the ball rolling. That’s a recipe for a rushed rollout.

Plus, I’m looking to reduce the likelihood of more big custodial collapses like Mt. Gox and FTX. If we wait, the next one could be Coinbase, or some as-yet-unknown custodian that’s even bigger.

Getting the UASF ball rolling now is capacity planning for the “suddenly” rush that’s around the corner.

This is worst than the gulag ser. Can I choose the gulag? 🥲

Of course, suggestions are welcome! Is that Bitcoin related?

My only concern in this topic is about the hardware. Its fucking dificult to do at home and/or verify if they are made such way to visibily auditable like open source projects.

You know that will not work, right? You have to kill them with Bitcoin adoption.

Isn't the government supposed to be working for us? Clearly hasn't been the case in 100 years.

If they aren't working for the people, then who's their boss? I don't take the "1%" for an answer, it's too meaningless a term. They're not gonna work for you all the sudden if you graduate to the 1% .

They are working for someone else that isnt me or you. Government offecials working for someone or something other than the people is treason. Protesting them to them is idiotic at best. You either get them fired and taken to court for their treason or implement total disobedience. That is the solution.

Let’s be clear.

#Bitcoin is not a commodity.

#Bitcoin is money.

mining is the only way to acquire at scale

Interesting that Bitcoin is able to soar in FIAT price without QE. I assumed BTC would act as a sponge for liquidity.