From: "David A. Harding" <dave@dtrt•org>
To: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit•edu>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Unlimited covenants, was Re: CHECKSIGFROMSTACK/{Verify} BIP for Bitcoin
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2021 10:32:30 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210704203230.37hlpdyzr4aijiet@ganymede> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAD5xwhimPBEV_tLpSPxs9B+XGUhvPx_dnhok=8=hyksyi4=B6g@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2135 bytes --]
On Sun, Jul 04, 2021 at 11:39:44AM -0700, Jeremy wrote:
> However, I think the broader community is unconvinced by the cost benefit
> of arbitrary covenants. See
> https://medium.com/block-digest-mempool/my-worries-about-too-generalized-covenants-5eff33affbb6
> as a recent example. Therefore as a critical part of building consensus on
> various techniques I've worked to emphasize that specific additions do not
> entail risk of accidentally introducing more than was bargained for to
> respect the concerns of others.
Respecting the concerns of others doesn't require lobotomizing useful
tools. Being respectful can also be accomplished by politely showing
that their concerns are unfounded (or at least less severe than they
thought). This is almost always the better course IMO---it takes much
more effort to satisfy additional engineering constraints (and prove to
reviewers that you've done so!) than it does to simply discuss those
concerns with reasonable stakeholders. As a demonstration, let's look
at the concerns from Shinobi's post linked above:
They seem to be worried that some Bitcoin users will choose to accept
coins that can't subsequently be fungibily mixed with other bitcoins.
But that's already been the case for a decade: users can accept altcoins
that are non-fungible with bitcoins.
They talk about covenants where spending is controlled by governments,
but that seems to me exactly like China's CBDC trial.
They talk about exchanges depositing users' BTC into a covenant, but
that's just a variation on the classic not-your-keys-not-your-bitcoins
problem. For all you know, your local exchange is keeping most of its
BTC balance commitments in ETH or USDT.
To me, it seems like the worst-case problems Shinobi describes with
covenants are some of the same problems that already exist with
altcoins. I don't see how recursive covenants could make any of those
problems worse, and so I don't see any point in limiting Bitcoin's
flexibility to avoid those problems when there are so many interesting
and useful things that unlimited covenants could do.
-Dave
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-04 20:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-03 16:31 [bitcoin-dev] " Jeremy
2021-07-03 17:50 ` Russell O'Connor
2021-07-03 18:30 ` Jeremy
2021-07-03 20:12 ` Russell O'Connor
2021-07-04 17:30 ` Jeremy
2021-07-04 19:03 ` Russell O'Connor
2021-07-06 17:54 ` Jeremy
2021-07-06 18:21 ` Russell O'Connor
2021-07-06 18:53 ` Jeremy
2021-07-04 1:13 ` David A. Harding
2021-07-04 18:39 ` Jeremy
2021-07-04 20:32 ` David A. Harding [this message]
2021-07-04 20:50 ` [bitcoin-dev] Unlimited covenants, was " Billy Tetrud
2021-07-05 0:50 ` ZmnSCPxj
2021-07-05 1:02 ` Russell O'Connor
2021-07-05 2:10 ` Russell O'Connor
2021-07-05 2:39 ` ZmnSCPxj
2021-07-05 5:04 ` Anthony Towns
2021-07-05 13:46 ` Matt Corallo
2021-07-05 13:51 ` Greg Sanders
2022-02-03 6:17 ` Anthony Towns
2021-07-05 17:20 ` Russell O'Connor
2021-07-06 6:25 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-07-06 10:20 ` Sanket Kanjalkar
2021-07-06 11:26 ` Russell O'Connor
2021-07-06 18:36 ` Jeremy
2021-07-07 4:26 ` ZmnSCPxj
2021-07-07 6:12 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-07-07 13:12 ` Russell O'Connor
2021-07-07 14:24 ` Russell O'Connor
2021-07-07 17:26 ` Jeremy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210704203230.37hlpdyzr4aijiet@ganymede \
--to=dave@dtrt$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jlrubin@mit$(echo .)edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox