Covenants Could Take Bitcoin To The Next Level \ stacker news ~bitcoin

Covenants Could Take Bitcoin To The Next Level plebunderground.substack.com/p/covenants-could-take-bitcoin-to-the

452 sats \ 12 comments \ @hasherstacker 25 May bitcoin

115 sats \ 0 replies \ @hasherstacker OP 25 May

How Bitcoin Covenants Work

When a Bitcoin transaction is initiated, the user can specify a covenant that dictates the conditions for spending the involved bitcoin. These conditions can range from simple timelocks to complex multi-signature requirements. Once the covenant is deployed, the bitcoin becomes subject to these predetermined rules, ensuring that it is spent according to the specified conditions.

Bitcoin covenants allow for a diverse range of applications.

Vaults, for example, incorporate a time-lock mechanism, preventing unauthorized spending for a predetermined period, and enhancing security by deterring immediate theft of funds in case of compromised private keys.

Payment channels are another example of covenants. They could facilitate efficient and faster off-chain transactions by enabling intermediaries to process transactions without requiring on-chain confirmations, reducing transaction fees, and improving scalability.

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @BitcoinAbhi 25 May

There's a real chance, as I can see, with the covenants. We need more and more use cases to take it to the next level, of course. Can you please specify which proposal you personally like?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @hasherstacker OP 25 May

Some of the concrete use cases are:

Escrow Services: Covenants can provide a trustless and transparent environment for secure transactions.
Conditional Payments: Covenants empower conditional payments, allowing funds to be released based on pre-agreed conditions or milestones.

1 sat \ 7 replies \ @justin_shocknet 25 May

Covenants are shitcoiner rhetoric for outsourcing consensus for non-monetary purposes, the coins locked in them are effectively a merge-mined sidechain.

Total trash and an attack on Bitcoin.

100 sats \ 6 replies \ @025738dda8 25 May

Can you be more specific? Your claim includes the CLTV (which is a covenant according to the definition) that is already in use by LN and allows HLTC. Is LN an attack to Bitcoin? Is LN a shitcoin in this sense? What exactly do you mean by "an attack"?

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @justin_shocknet 25 May

"by definition"

That's scammers/shitcoiners word games, in reality HTLC's use pre-signed transactions, and block height is native, not external consensus.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @025738dda8 25 May

So, covenants implemented using presigned transactions are OK for you? The thing that bothers you is the implementation?

What you mean by external consensus?

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @justin_shocknet 25 May

If you use pre-signed tx you don't need new covenants

Shitcoiners trying to change Bitcoin is to suit their scams is what irks me

External consensus are programs that neither benefit from/to Bitcoins security

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @025738dda8 26 May

If you use pre-signed tx you don't need new covenants

I'd like to see a way how to avoid having those pre-signed transactions to simplify L2 and improve scaling. LN might benefit from that, Ark can be evolved better and probably others. I can be wrong that there is a good value in that. That's why I ask you about the details. I am trying to understand what exactly bothers you.

Covenants are shitcoiner rhetoric for outsourcing consensus for non-monetary purposes Shitcoiners trying to change Bitcoin is to suit their scams is what irks me

I don't like the non-monetary purposes as well. On the other hand, there will always be some. And the more you push against them, the more they will answer back.

External consensus are programs that neither benefit from/to Bitcoins security

That's still very vague. Can you mention an example program like that?

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @travis 25 May

I suspect some people don't realize that there are covenants already on Bitcoin.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 25 May

That's a contrived use of the term.. were it not the shitcoiners would be content.

Reality is HTLC's use pre-signed transactions, nor is block height external consensus as would be the case in a shitfork.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @cryotosensei 25 May

Interesting. Do you think non-KYC platforms like RoboSats and Bisq will integrate covenants into their operations?