Any meaningful covenant must be one that is reducing control by the current
owner.
I can think of countless predicates reducing control, but try to explore the
least invasive first,
and see if they unlock a new use.
Offering alternate control paths is what taproot was designed for, therefore a
I made an error proposing the new covenant. It should be unchanged as in the
original example:
‘covenant or(and(_, pk(Transfer)) covenant transitive, and(pk(Exit), _)
covenant drop)’
since the placeholder stays for the control of the rightful owner without
transfer signature on or off chain.
Hello ZmnSCPxj,
Yes, representation of debt is more interesting here as it requires the
covenant, wheras this example, as you point out, was less convincing given
alternatives.
I created this example to avoid discussion of topics not approriate on this
list.
Thank you for the suggestion of
Good morning Tamas,
While I think covenants for some kind of debt tool is mildly interesting and an
appropriate solution, I wonder about this particular use-case.
It seems to me that, as either the `Transfer` signers or `Exit` signers are
always involved, that the `Transfer` signers can be
I introduced you to gerneralized covenants[1] earlier, but in a domain specific
context that de-routed us from technical discussion. Let me demonstrate the
concept in a more generic use:
A covenant
or(and(pk(Transfer), _) covenant transitive, and(pk(Exit),_) covenant drop)
would put a coin
