Author: Billy Tetrud 2021-07-04 20:50:43
Published on: 2021-07-04T20:50:43+00:00
The discussion revolves around the usefulness and importance of unconstrained covenants in Bitcoin. While some argue that they can lead to the burning or permanent limitation of certain coins, others believe that people should have the freedom to use them as they wish. The potential loss of encumbered coins is not a major concern, as there will always be plenty of bitcoins available for use due to their infinite divisibility. Additionally, governments already have the power to force people to use alternative coins, so covenants do not make this worse. The concerns raised by Shinobi regarding the use of 51% attacks to extort users are deemed invalid, as this can happen without covenants being involved.Jeremy expresses concern that the broader community is unconvinced about the cost-benefit of arbitrary covenants. He shares an article discussing these worries and emphasizes the need to ensure that specific additions do not unintentionally introduce risks. David Harding disagrees, stating that respecting the concerns of others does not require limiting useful tools. He argues that most of the problems associated with covenants are already present in altcoins and recursive covenants would not make them any worse. Therefore, he believes that it is unnecessary to limit Bitcoin's flexibility to avoid these issues when there are many beneficial ways to use unlimited covenants.
Updated on: 2023-06-15T00:03:18.206552+00:00