{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub16dt55fpq3a8r6zpphd9xngxr46zzqs75gna9cj5vf8pknyv2d7equx4wrd","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub16dt55fpq3a8r6zpphd9xngxr46zzqs75gna9cj5vf8pknyv2d7equx4wrd","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2022-02-10\n📝 Original message:On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 08:34:30PM -0800, Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e Whether [recursive covenants] is an issue or not precluding this sort\n\u003e of design or not, I defer to others.\n\nFor reference, I believe the last time the merits of allowing recursive\ncovenants was discussed at length on this list[1], not a single person\nreplied to say that they were opposed to the idea.\n\nI would like to suggest that anyone opposed to recursive covenants speak\nfor themselves (if any intelligent such people exist).  Citing the risk\nof recursive covenants without presenting a credible argument for the\nsource of that risk feels to me like (at best) stop energy[2] and (at\nworst) FUD.\n\n-Dave\n\n[1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-July/019203.html\n[2] http://radio-weblogs.com/0107584/stories/2002/05/05/stopEnergyByDaveWiner.html\n    (thanks to AJ who told me about stop energy one time when I was\n    producing it)\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 833 bytes\nDesc: not available\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220211/c471f94d/attachment.sig\u003e"}