On 4/22/22 9:28 AM, James O'Beirne wrote:
> There are at least three or four separate covenants designs that have > been posted to this list, and I don't see why we're even remotely > talking about a specific one as something to move forward with at > this point. To my knowledge none of these other proposals (drafts, really) have actual implementations let alone the many sample usages that exist for CTV.
You can fix this! Don't point to something you can easily remedy in the short-term as an argument for or against something in the long-term.
Given that the "covenants" discussion has been ongoing for years now, I think the lack of other serious proposals is indicative of the difficulty inherent in coming up with a preferable alternative to CTV.
I'd think its indicative of the lack of interest in serious covenants designs from many of the highly-qualified people who could be working on them. There are many reasons for that. If there's one positive thing from the current total mess, its that hopefully there will be a renewed interest in researching things and forming conclusions.
CTV is about as simple a covenant system as can be devised - its limits relative to more "general" covenant designs notwithstanding. The level of review around CTV's design is well beyond the other sketches for possible designs that this list has seen.
[citation needed] Matt _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
