pull down to refresh
1305 sats \ 10 replies \ @benthecarman 19 Dec 2023 \ on: Opinion on Covenants? bitcoin
We either get covenants or only rich people can do self custodial bitcoin
You covenant shills are one step away from "Think of the children" style responses.
reply
Pardon my ignorance, but you're saying this because covenants is required for stuff like
OP_VAULT, right? Covenants is just the blanket term for anything that restricts utxos in any way, right? If so, that's also why I am pro covenants. Bitcoin is programmable money, we should make use of this feature (if it makes sense).reply
OP_VAULT is a covenant
reply
where can i learn more about the reasoning behind this assertion ?
reply
look at lightning right now, we have maybe 0.1% adoption of bitcoin and fees are so high that it is unusable to use a self-custodial without putting a few thousand dollars to get around chain fees and channel reserves
reply
you may have this sorted out for yourself, but it's not clear to me why 'looking at lightning' explains why only rich people get to self-custody if we don't signal for BIP119 in Jan 2024
could you at least pretend to steelman the case for even the smallest amount of concern against introducing a protocol-level mechanism for controlling how coins can be spent?
reply
We need covenants for non-custodial, non-interactive L2s.
reply
Check out channel factories
reply
yeah, i've heard of this plan to spin up many thousands of channels in one transaction, and we can't have a LN address for every person on chain right now because every person requires one transaction to spin up a channel.
reply
deleted by author
reply