Author: Ryan Grant 2022-05-03 14:36:15
Published on: 2022-05-03T14:36:15+00:00
In this Bitcoin-dev email thread, Jorge Timón accused Andreas of being clueless about BIP 119 and other covenant proposals, spreading misinformation. In response, the author explains that OP_CTV covenants do not restrict any address that the sender does not control and only deliver auditable presigned transactions. The primary design constraint is to not empower new ways to do blacklists. Andreas has been criticized for using a few words of indecision to make excuses for not code-reviewing BIP119 or the pull request while using a lot of words talking about how dangerous any change is, conservative consensus process, and GovCoin blacklists. The author claims that Andreas also did not look into the reason that the proposed client was safe and would not cause a chain split.Some developers believe that users should build their own alternative client for forced activation or enable some kind of forced activation that is not enabled by default. Andreas did not look for a non-attack reason for a separate binary release, leading to Jimmy Song claiming that the OP_CTV review process is "routing around" some Big Names. However, the author explains that releasing an alternative client is not a decision made from impatience and disrespect. It’s the result of asking everyone, getting literal non-responses, and intuiting that the landscape has changed, so something on this path must be different from last time.Finally, Andreas summarized the conservatism in his position as basically, "If you want scripting and contracts, go buy ETH." Which is offensive to everyone trying to make bitcoins more protective of individual freedom and thus more valuable. The author suggests that the path to redemption in the Bitcoin community is to unequivocally help Bitcoin.
Updated on: 2023-06-15T20:03:23.898128+00:00