On Mon, Jul 05, 2021 at 09:46:21AM -0400, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote: > More importantly, AJ's point here neuters anti-covanent arguments rather > strongly. > > On 7/5/21 01:04, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > In some sense multisig *alone* enables recursive covenants: a government > > that wants to enforce KYC can require that funds be deposited into > > a multisig of "2 <recipient> <gov_key> 2 CHECKMULTISIG", and that > > "recipient" has gone through KYC. Once deposited to such an address, > > the gov can refus to sign with gov_key unless the funds are being spent > > to a new address that follows the same rules.
I couldn't remember where I'd heard this, but it looks like I came across it via Andrew Poelstra's "CAT and Schnorr Tricks II" post [0] (Feb 2021), in which he credits Ethan Heilman for originally coming up with the analogy (in 2019, cf [1]). [0] https://medium.com/blockstream/cat-and-schnorr-tricks-ii-2f6ede3d7bb5 [1] https://twitter.com/Ethan_Heilman/status/1194624166093369345 Cheers, aj _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
