What are the chances that we end up breaking L1 with covenants (recursion, whitelists, etc) and require a hard fork?
12 sats \ 0 replies \ @BlueSlime 4 May 2022
I used to be bearish on covenants, but now I think they would really help streamline a few things, and a number of the features would help drive mainstream adoption, more so than Taproot.
reply
12 sats \ 0 replies \ @arrowdrive 4 May 2022
The chances are zero. BIP 119 doesn’t allow recursion or whitelists. The covenant can only be defined by the recipient, not the sender.
reply
12 sats \ 0 replies \ @notgeld 4 May 2022
I don't think this scenario is real.
At some point we already have that: some services block CJ coins, somebody prefers "virgin" coins. Somebody really dislikes L-BTC or LN (also sort of "frozen" liquidity onchain) and avoids using it.
Thus, if this really takes place those coins will probably circulate in their own loop and may be sold at discounts. The good thing about soft-fork is that people can opt-out form it if this property preserves I think everything will be ok.
reply
2 sats \ 1 reply \ @oooxxxml 4 May 2022 freebie
Still cannot understand what is going on.
reply
22 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 4 May 2022
Is simple:
- a dev make a proposal
- core devs says they need to look more into this (nothing that is bad or good)
- some total clueless people jump in saying that "he wants to destroy" Bitcoin
- these clueless people start making a lot of noise on twatter and online in general, manipulating noobs and even more clueless people
- people freaked out and create even m,ore drama FOR NOTHING.
- banksters just laugh watching how bitcoiners fight each others for nothing.
reply