It's been many years and there's been a lot of discussion about various covenants
I think one of the biggest problems is everyone has to insist on their baby is the best baby. op_ctv is quite literally not the best at anything. That's the whole point. It's non-recursive, can't be used for strange or dangerous things, and can be used to emulate a lot of other opcodes. It's adequate. And I don't think we want anything "better" than adequate the first time around. lnhance is more comprehensive. but also it's so much harder to reason about three separate op codes and what the attack surface could be. I don't think it's possible to optimize a series of covenants for all possible scenarios. Easy to make them too powerful and now nodes are doing too much work and we're attracting the kind of network activity that nobody wants. Fortunately the risk of CTV is fairly low. It's always possible to turn it off (no new tx)... if there's a game theory issue. I don't think there's any particular rush, but we could lose a lot of fees and support for miners if Bitcoin continues to do what it is doing now... scaling almost entirely in custodial systems. That's also just not the Bitcoin that anyone loves. At this point it feels like it's "perfect is the enemy of the good". We have an old and rather well tested pull request that is only a handful of lines of code that everyone has scrutinized a million ways. I don't think we're getting that for any other covenant opcode. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CAJowKg%2BcCoocSEYsTT3bLwte%3D-3Kbzo5k6YT--UnDwzoZPF1wQ%40mail.gmail.com.
