pull down to refresh

102 sats \ 1 reply \ @lightcoin OP 9h \ parent \ on: Why all Bitcoiners should support covenants bitcoin
Would introducing covenants require adding code to the code-base?
yes
As AI becomes more useful as agentic systems development tools, what vulnerabilities might not be found and exploited by a human dev, but could by intelligent neural networks working for an adversary?
Not sure how I, a human, am supposed to answer this question. My post does explicitly acknowledge (and set aside) the issue of implementation risks, though.
Will there be certain unforeseen economic attack vectors, such as mempools becoming congested, as seen in the past, that would make the basic operation and utility become an issue? (again, thinking how an adversarial strategist may want to game and disrupt current usage. * I read you covered that, but just wondered if that is not a serious trade-off for you.
A full mempool is a good problem to have as far as I'm concerned. It's also something that could happen with or without a covenant soft fork. So we should have the tooling to deal with that situation in any case.
Would covenants soft-fork increase overheads for running a node?
Maybe, maybe not. Again something that could happen with or without a covenant soft fork, and something we should have the tooling to deal with in any case. See projects like Utreexo and Zerosync for examples of mitigations for node bloat.
write
preview
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @xz 8h
Thanks.
I do see some of the trade-offs for both for and against, but feel hard to be persuaded that there'd be minimal risk. I know it's the age-old ossification debate, but I'm erring on the side of caution.
Not sure how I, a human, am supposed to answer this question. My post does explicitly acknowledge (and set aside) the issue of implementation risks, though.
Sorry, I didn't mean you can answer that, was just wondering if developing a code-base (with growth in ai usage) is seen as a threat by proficient Bitcoin devs.
reply