I dunno enough about the covenant stuff to have a strong take, was just curious how this was even possible. Maybe the lesson so far is that if support for covenants is not purposefully added, it will probably happen on accident at some point.

Ayy LNHANCE right? That's another person who has socially flagged in support! Good to know

benthecarman

> but maybe your mind is wired like mine and this re-wording is helpful.

Yep! It’s helpful. For sure. 

That post broke my mind for a little bit.

Great write up! Thanks for breaking down this mousetrap further.

> Andrew is great at walking through really complex things in simple terms. But with that said, I had to re-read that post like five times and let it sink in over a day before it started to click.

I can relate to this.


endothermicdev

Man your blog is awesome!  Glad you posted this :)

elvismercury

The development continuum

|Ossificationist | Conservative | Active Development |  Lets Do It |
| ---------------------|----------------------|--------------------------------|-----------------|
|The chain should be essentially ossified and no further developments should happen unless critical bugs are found | Typically 99 out of 100 usecases are not worth it, extreme care and 1 year+ of research should be required before adding anything | We should regularly add new features where they make sense after careful study | Lets transform Bitcoin development into being an active project and start building really cool stuff, if we break something we can quickly fix it|


Personally, I'm somewhere between an Ossificationist and a Conservative. My ideal development scenario is that a development window should open for 1 new add-in every 4 years on a set schedule. Those who want to add something in, will have to utilize that 4 year timeframe building the case for their new add-in and demonstrating all the benefits and showing lack of risk.



freetx

jetecs6

I went on a journey to wrap my head around how something as simple sounding as 

 can enabled covenants and more complicated offchain contracts. Like I mention in the post, Andrew Poelstra is definitely the guy to listen to for the clearest descriptions of this, but maybe your mind is wired like mine and this re-wording is helpful. Also happy to hear if I misinterpreted anything!

bitcoin

I went on a journey to wrap my head around how something as simple sounding as `OP_CAT` can enabled covenants and more complicated offchain contracts. Like I mention in the post, Andrew Poelstra is definitely the guy to listen to for the clearest descriptions of this, but maybe your mind is wired like mine and this re-wording is helpful. Also happy to hear if I misinterpreted anything!

Ossificationist	Conservative	Active Development	Lets Do It
The chain should be essentially ossified and no further developments should happen unless critical bugs are found	Typically 99 out of 100 usecases are not worth it, extreme care and 1 year+ of research should be required before adding anything	We should regularly add new features where they make sense after careful study	Lets transform Bitcoin development into being an active project and start building really cool stuff, if we break something we can quickly fix it