pull down to refresh
So, you would say that you're in support of OP_CAT? I know there's been some talk that it would open up some ability to hack or exploit L2, but I don't know how credible that risk is.
why force people to have an opinion?
in most softfork scenarios, if you're not a miner nor an economically active node, you can abstain from expressing an opinion, keep your coins on both sides if there actually is a chain split, and decide after an indefinite amount of time spent observing the outcome rather than buying into either side's propaganda.
You certainly dont have to have an opinion. I personally would like to have an informed one. To each their own.
I don't disagree with that either. I'm not trying to push people into a camp. I am openly admitting that I don't understand a lot of this stuff and I'm looking for input from people who know more than me.
One angle that does not get enough attention: the legal and regulatory risk of not forking.
If quantum computing reaches the point where it can crack ECDSA (even in a limited, expensive way), every bitcoin sitting in a p2pkh address with an exposed public key becomes legally ambiguous property. Courts will have to decide whether coins moved by a quantum attacker constitute theft or something more like an exploit of a known protocol weakness that the network chose not to fix. That distinction matters for insurance, for custody agreements, and for the fiduciary duties of anyone holding bitcoin on behalf of others.
The longer the network waits to implement quantum resistance, the stronger the argument that the vulnerability was accepted rather than unaddressed. That shifts legal risk onto custodians and institutional holders in ways they may not be pricing in yet.
On the OP_CAT question specifically: covenants will attract regulatory attention because they enable more complex on-chain conditions, which regulators will read as programmable compliance (good) or programmable evasion (bad) depending on the application. But that regulatory interest is coming regardless of what Bitcoin does. Better to have the tools and face the scrutiny than to lack the tools and face the same scrutiny anyway.