Author: Anthony Towns 2022-05-13 21:43:47
Published on: 2022-05-13T21:43:47+00:00
In a recent discussion on bitcoin-dev, Russell O'Connor expressed his belief that recursive covenants are necessary for programmable money, as it is difficult to avoid them. He also stated that recursive covenants can be beneficial if used properly, but like any cryptographic tool, they can be harmful if misused. Therefore, users should take the time to understand them before using them. O'Connor believes that it makes sense to embrace recursive covenants and follow the "not your keys, not your coins" philosophy to ensure that one's funds are safe from covenants. O'Connor explains that generating an address from a private key guarantees that one's funds won't be encumbered by any covenants. Furthermore, generating the full address is necessary with taproot because if there are any unknown tapscript MAST paths, someone could potentially steal the funds. However, if the user generated the address themselves, they (or at least their software) would understand everything and not include anything dangerous, thus ensuring their funds' safety.Although some people may refuse to send money to an address that is not encumbered with a specific covenant, O'Connor states that this just means they are refusing to pay, similar to those who say they will only pay off-chain via Coinbase or SWIFT. He emphasizes the need for individuals with moral fortitude to say no to these offers and reject improper payments.Regarding specific opcode proposals, O'Connor suggests considering how much can be done with it, how efficient it is to validate, how easy it is to make it do what you want, how helpful it is at preventing bugs, and how clean and maintainable the validation code is. He concludes with cheers and his initials, aj.
Updated on: 2023-05-22T19:59:00.831280+00:00