Author: Billy Tetrud 2022-05-10 15:09:45
Published on: 2022-05-10T15:09:45+00:00
The discussion revolves around the use of covenants and their potential implications. The concern is that governments could mandate certain spend conditions for Bitcoin, but it is argued that this would require a law to force the acceptance of these conditions for services. One defense against receiving "tainted" coins is to generate a compliant script to receive funds - if one does not want to receive restricted coins, they simply do not generate an address with those restrictions embedded. This quarantines all risk incurred to the receiver of the funds. It is noted that any time funds are being transferred between organizations with incompatible interests, they will want to be completely free to choose their own spend conditions and will not wish to inherit the conditions of the spender. This is a reason to oppose legal tender laws for Bitcoin. The idea of recursive covenants creating walled gardens is discussed, but it is noted that dynamic covenants are necessary for practical use. OP_CHECKOUTPUTVERIFY can enable dynamicness, and OP_PUSHOUTPUTSTACK can enable it for things like OP_TLUV and OP_CD. Multisig wallets can also achieve similar results to walled gardens. It is concluded that such concerns are not a real concern with Bitcoin due to the inability of OP_CTV to provide recursive covenants.
Updated on: 2023-06-15T20:38:41.274091+00:00