pull down to refresh
That's by design, both camps are funded by the same hidden hand, the one pushing for covenants
- Divide and Conquer fractures a society into hostile factions.
- Controlled Opposition leadership is installed to misguide and pacify those factions.
- The Fog of War is generated through relentless disinformation, making it impossible for the average person to find the truth.
- PSYOP capitalizes on the resulting confusion and division to manipulate behaviors and solidify the originator's control.
Both camps exist to be divided such that when their leaders get the unification signal there will be few unfactioned left to resist.
This is observable in how BIP-110 forces a wedge directly into the conservative faction of Bitcoin. By making BIP-110 a "User-Activated Soft Fork" (UASF), it forces purists to choose between aggressive protocol intervention or letting the chain bloat. The Result being the unified front against base-layer changes is broken.
Once the taboo of forcing a soft fork via minority signaling is normalized, the psychological barrier to activating covenants is completely gone. The precedent changes from never changing the base layer to changing it when the base layer when the crisis is big enough.
The lines between intelligence agencies and industry are blurry, same way that industries use regulation to protect against competition. The government is just a giant corporation where industry colludes.
If the large entities get their way and enable Bitcoin delegation, it gives leverage to their existing systems of control.
Think withdrawing your Bitcoin from an exchange, if they use covenants they can revoke your coin after you've withdrawn or make sure you don't send it to someone they don't like... Fake L2's getting acquired by the big banks... Stablecoins that trace back to your Bitcoin stack after you sell on a "DEX"... coordinators everywhere conducting surveillance...
The possibilities with covenants are endless, none of them good.
if they use covenants
How so? I still supply the withdrawal address, which means I specify the locking script?
You think they won't let me withdraw unless I withdraw to a cucked address? Seems like no one would bother doing that. And it would just become a thing where if you buy on an exchange, you know you can't actually get the bitcoin, which means anyone who wants actual bitcoin won't buy on exchanges.
I don't see how the possibilities with covenants are so endless. Receiver's produce addresses, if the person won't send to my address, it's no different than a bcasher saying they can't send to my address.
Once the option is available it will become required, no exchange will be allowed to operate if they allow withdrawals to non-cucked outputs. Regulatory capture all over again.
You may not like it, but most will accept it graciously, under the guise of being protected from account hacks or scams. Non-covenant coins will become the exception, eventually you may not even be able to sell it for dollars in any meaningful amount. Sorry Scoresby Jr, no family vacation this year, Daddy has black market coins.
Larping with p2p exchanges can be fun if you're into frivolities, but that's not what moves the coin market.
It's exactly the same as colored coins and other anti-fungibility schemes Bitcoiners used to rail against when they weren't distracted by shit like BIP-110
Receiver's produce addresses
Which is exactly why the vaults use-case for covenants is retarded, but that's a separate matter.
You may not like it, but most will accept it graciously, under the guise of being protected from account hacks or scams.
EXACTLY. See the case of Spark.... first they introduce it slowly to make people comfortable and "excited" to use it, then baaaam wil lbe required all over and with a full KYC.
You paint a grim picture of things. I don't see it playing out this way. But perhaps it comes down to how big a market will the black market be. If it gets big enough, the point becomes moot. As much as governments love their authority, it's hard to keep tabs on billions of humans. Unless we build ourselves a nice cage.
In any case, Scoresby jr wil just have to go on vacation to the yakuza opium dens and calabrian wine cellars of the mafia.
It doesn't have to be this way, Bitcoiners could just stop being retarded for a minute and not bandwagon jump when some NGO soy-dev says they should support an OP_Code that will delegate their coins.
Larping with p2p? What's wrong with p2p? (And please stop using metaphors...)
That's by design, both camps...
That's what I want to know. Conspiracy theories are great but ultimately useless. Let's define the camps. Who are the actors and what are their motivations? Shadowy cabals are great and all but I'd really like to hear the specifics.
Going out on a limb here: there aren't any specifics.
Both camps are just masses of people with various motivations acting and reacting to an ever changing landscape of ideas and convictions. Bitcoin mururations (ref: starlings) if you will.
it forces purists to choose between aggressive protocol intervention or letting the chain bloat.
This is the real joke of it all. OP_0 OP_IF in p2sh scriptsigs will simply thrive on a BIP-110 upgraded chain. The only way I see that not happening is if there is a permanent fork and the BIP-110 side fails to overtake the ossified version in exchange rate. Then, the BIP-110 can have their utopian version of Bitcoin, in isolation.
Why do you think that the debate has been so plagued with people misunderstanding each other?