This is Shinobi (can verify out of band at @brian_trollz on Twitter, I only
signed up to the list with this email to read initially, but feel like I
should reply to this as I think I am one of the only people in this space
who has voiced concerns with recursive covenants).
My concerns don't really
I don't oppose recursive covenants per se, but in prior posts I have
expressed uncertainty about proposals that enable more "featureful"
covenants by adding more kinds of computation into bitcoin script.
Not that anyone here is necessarily saying otherwise, but I am very
interested in limiting ope
Hi James,
I fully agree on the need to reframe the conversation around
mempools/fee-bumping/L2s though please see my following comments, it's far
from simple!
> Layering on special cases, more carve-outs, and X and Y percentage
> thresholds is going to make reasoning about the mempool harder than
Well because in the example i gave you this decreases the miner's reward. The
rule of increasing feerate you stated isn't always economically rationale.
Note how it can also be extended, for instance if the miner only has 1.5vMB of
txs and is not assured to receive enough transactions to fill 2
That sounds completely reasonable.
Originally I had discussed privately making the protocol design completely
interactive (client sends a nonce over DNS, oracle responds signing the nonce),
but it was pointed out that making them use quantized timestamps mitigated a
lot of the issues regarding
