Thank you for reading my comment and taking the time to explain. The word "whitelist" came up in one of your previous (linked) posts. It's a new word for me, so it wasn't necessarily how I thought about it, although, is concentric with the anxiety I had, which is that (my reflex thought, based on how it was worded, see above, was) somehow covenants could be used to undermine the permissionlessness of using Bitcoin. I'll be honest though, I don't fully follow the idea of a "permanently KYC'd coin," and I don't maintain that view.
Covenants can let you protect your bitcoin from theft, hand it on to others, or collaborate in how your bitcoin is spent in a group
It sounds aspirational, and a bit like a how nanny-state strives to function. Claw-backs, especially, very fiat.
Protecting bitcoin from theft requires cajones, not covenants.
Thank you for reading my comment and taking the time to explain. The word "whitelist" came up in one of your previous (linked) posts. It's a new word for me, so it wasn't necessarily how I thought about it, although, is concentric with the anxiety I had, which is that (my reflex thought, based on how it was worded, see above, was) somehow covenants could be used to undermine the permissionlessness of using Bitcoin. I'll be honest though, I don't fully follow the idea of a "permanently KYC'd coin," and I don't maintain that view.
It sounds aspirational, and a bit like a how nanny-state strives to function. Claw-backs, especially, very fiat.
Protecting bitcoin from theft requires cajones, not covenants.