rich1.0npub16dt55fpq3a8r6zpphd9xngxr46zzqs75gna9cj5vf8pknyv2d7equx4wrdhttps://nostr.ae/npub16dt55fpq3a8r6zpphd9xngxr46zzqs75gna9cj5vf8pknyv2d7equx4wrdnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2022-02-10 📝 Original message:On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 08:34:30PM -0800, Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Whether [recursive covenants] is an issue or not precluding this sort > of design or not, I defer to others. For reference, I believe the last time the merits of allowing recursive covenants was discussed at length on this list[1], not a single person replied to say that they were opposed to the idea. I would like to suggest that anyone opposed to recursive covenants speak for themselves (if any intelligent such people exist). Citing the risk of recursive covenants without presenting a credible argument for the source of that risk feels to me like (at best) stop energy[2] and (at worst) FUD. -Dave [1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-July/019203.html [2] http://radio-weblogs.com/0107584/stories/2002/05/05/stopEnergyByDaveWiner.html (thanks to AJ who told me about stop energy one time when I was producing it) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220211/c471f94d/attachment.sig>