Oh no, covenants? So good bye fungibility and welcome censorship? I am quite opposed to the idea of limiting where one can send from a given address. This would 100% lead to exchanges embedding whitelists with withdrawals and if those are recursive, bitcoin is screwed.
Exchanges already have whitelists
I don't think covenants make them worse
The recipient creates the covenant, not the sender, so just don't create a covenant that restricts how you can spend your money
If your concern is that exchanges might require you to create a covenant address that matches their template, otherwise they won't let you withdraw, they can already do this thing that seems equivalent:
Exchanges can -- right now -- only let you withdraw to a 2 of 2 where they control one key
Then they'd get to veto any future expenditure you try to make
Are covenants worse than that?
Even if they are, just fall back on this: don't make a covenant encumbered address and exchanges can't harm you (except by refusing to send money to you, which they can also already do)
reply
The same concern can also work in reverse, against the exchanges. For example, you could choose not to deposit to an exchange unless they prove to you that the deposit address commits to a covenant which meets your criteria.
Covenants, as a concept, are not inherently bad. There are good uses, and bad uses, and the judgment of good and bad is subjective.
Prudent bitcoiners should always request more information about where they are about to send their sats before they send them.
We already have phrases like:
  1. don't trust, verify
  2. not your node not your code
  3. not your keys not your coins
Maybe we need one for covenant-like transactions, so people remember to assess them before spending, but this is pretty much already handled by #1 above.
Just my 2 sats, and I reserve the right to change my opinion on the subject (so this comment is not a covenant...or is it? because the edit window on SN will close for it ..oh well).
reply