{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub183ws43p6p2yhlfv92evu5xg2wuj2g72qvzhqjmep8e37clf6ewnsrl5sgy","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub183ws43p6p2yhlfv92evu5xg2wuj2g72qvzhqjmep8e37clf6ewnsrl5sgy","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2022-06-03\n📝 Original message:Totally agree.\nI couldn't agree more.\n\nOn Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 3:44 PM alicexbt via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Note: This email is an opinion and not an attack on bitcoin\n\u003e\n\u003e Covenants on bitcoin will eventually be implemented with a soft fork. CTV\n\u003e is the easiest and best possible way OP_TX looks good as well. Apart from\n\u003e the technical merits, covenants will improve a few other things:\n\u003e\n\u003e - Developers can build interesting projects with real demand in market.\n\u003e - Students learn Sapio and not just solidity.\n\u003e - Better tooling could be available for application developers.\n\u003e - Maybe we see bitcoin developer hackathons in different countries.\n\u003e - Demand for block space might increase, it wont be just exchanges and\n\u003e coinjoin.\n\u003e - Funding of bitcoin developers and projects might improve. Wont need to\n\u003e convince a few people for grants.\n\u003e\n\u003e **Why covenants are not contentious?**\n\u003e\n\u003e Some people may write paragraphs about CTV being contentious, spread\n\u003e misinformation and do all types of drama, politics etc. on social media but\n\u003e there are zero technical NACKs for CTV. We have discussed other covenant\n\u003e proposals in detail on mailing list and IRC meetings with an open minded\n\u003e approach.\n\u003e\n\u003e All the developers that participated in the discussion are either okay\n\u003e with CTV or OP_TX or covenants in general.\n\u003e\n\u003e **How and when should covenants be implemented in Bitcoin?**\n\u003e\n\u003e I don't think we should wait for years anticipating a proposal that\n\u003e everyone will agree on or argue for years to pretend changes are hard in\n\u003e Bitcoin. We should improve the review process for soft fork BIPs and share\n\u003e honest opinions with agreement, disagreement on technical merits.\n\u003e\n\u003e I prefer BIP 8 or improved BIP 8 for soft fork but I won't mind anything\n\u003e else being used if that improves Bitcoin. Covenants implemented in Bitcoin\n\u003e before the next cycle would provide opportunity for developers to build\n\u003e interesting things during the bear market. Ossification supporters also\n\u003e believe there is some window that will close soon, maybe doing changes\n\u003e considering each case individually will be a better approach. CTV is not a\n\u003e rushed soft fork, less people followed the research and it was not\n\u003e mentioned on social media repeatedly by the respected developers like other\n\u003e soft forks.\n\u003e\n\u003e /dev/fd0\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Sent with Proton Mail secure email.\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220603/7ef05782/attachment.html\u003e"}