pull down to refresh
To be honest, I've been too caught up with 110, my book, and my conference to dig in detail to the covenants proposals. I don't understand why they're not further along. I'm pro in principle. I don't see a whole lot of issues with them.
Two things are true at the same time here: one shouldn't get a feature on Bitcoin just because you want it. And, I think the covenants proposals have done enough to be considered soon.
That said, overall, maybe we don't need covenants yet. UTXOs aren't difficult to come by, yet.
reply
I respect that attitude of leaning conservative, and I suspect most Bitcoiners would agree with it.
I admit, prior to this recent debate, I'd never really considered what Bitcoin might do should a soft fork prove to be a choice the majority of the network regrets.
I think you are also right that most bitcoin users want self custody and to be able to pay for things. My experience of lightning is that most users aren't willing to set up a node and manage channels, and so then we very quickly are out of the world of self-custody and into things like Spark and Cashu (both may be great solutions). I can see how big upgrades to Bitcoin are alluring because they might finally allow self custody and payments to exist in one place.
This leads to another question: what do you think of some of the covenants proposals?