pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 6 replies \ @025738dda8 25 May \ parent \ on: Covenants Could Take Bitcoin To The Next Level bitcoin
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"?
"by definition"
That's scammers/shitcoiners word games, in reality HTLC's use pre-signed transactions, and block height is native, not external consensus.
reply
So, covenants implemented using presigned transactions are OK for you? The thing that bothers you is the implementation?
What you mean by external consensus?
reply
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
reply
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?
reply
reply
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.
reply