Good morning Jorge, > I think people may be scared of potential attacks based on covenants. For > example, visacoin. > But there was a thread with ideas of possible attacks based on covenants. > To me the most scary one is visacoin, specially seeing what happened in > canada and other places lately and the general censorship in the west, the > supposed war on "misinformation" going on (really a war against truth imo, > but whatever) it's getting really scary. But perhaps someone else can be more > scared about a covenant to add demurrage fees to coins or something, I don't > know. > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=278122
This requires *recursive* covenants. At the time the post was made, no distinction was seen between recursive and non-recursive covenants, which is why the post points out that covenants suck. The idea then was that anything powerful enough to provide covenants would also be powerful enough to provide *recursive* covenants, so there was no distinction made between recursive and non-recursive covenants (the latter was thought to be impossible). However, `OP_CTV` turns out to enable sort-of covenants, but by construction *cannot* provide recursion. It is just barely powerful enough to make a covenant, but not powerful enough to make *recursive* covenants. That is why today we distinguish between recursive and non-recursive covenant opcodes, because we now have opcode designs that provides non-recursive covenants (when previously it was thought all covenant opcodes would provide recursion). `visacoin` can only work as a recursive covenant, thus it is not possible to use `OP_CTV` to implement `visacoin`, regardless of your political views. (I was also misinformed in the past and ignored `OP_CTV` since I thought that, like all the other covenant opcodes, it would enable recursive covenants.) Regards, ZmnSCPxj _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
