📅 Original date posted:2022-04-22
📝 Original message:On 4/22/22 9:28 AM, James O'Beirne wrote:
> > There are at least three or four separate covenants designs that have
> > been posted to this list, and I don't see why we're even remotely
> > talking about a specific one as something to move forward with at
> > this point.
>
> To my knowledge none of these other proposals (drafts, really) have
> actual implementations let alone the many sample usages that exist for
> CTV.
You can fix this! Don't point to something you can easily remedy in the short-term as an argument
for or against something in the long-term.
> Given that the "covenants" discussion has been ongoing for years
> now, I think the lack of other serious proposals is indicative of the
> difficulty inherent in coming up with a preferable alternative to CTV.
I'd think its indicative of the lack of interest in serious covenants designs from many of the
highly-qualified people who could be working on them. There are many reasons for that. If there's
one positive thing from the current total mess, its that hopefully there will be a renewed interest
in researching things and forming conclusions.
> CTV is about as simple a covenant system as can be devised - its limits
> relative to more "general" covenant designs notwithstanding.
> The level of review around CTV's design is well beyond the other
> sketches for possible designs that this list has seen.
[citation needed]
Matt
Matt Corallo [ARCHIVE] /
npub1e4…jxmcu
2023-06-07 23:07:40
in reply to nevent1q…k9an
Author Public Key
npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcuPublished at
2023-06-07 23:07:40Event JSON
{
"id": "acc0ed95c1e87198d2f5c6527c7f050f224ac61fefb1c8ff3c593fb4049de54e",
"pubkey": "cd753aa8fbc112e14ffe9fe09d3630f0eff76ca68e376e004b8e77b687adddba",
"created_at": 1686179260,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3199d7e373413debbd60986222963e0a7995231a8bea9719310656b98185e004",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"6b315eaa93d5739a6846adea954c68c3bcc450479cb2cc6660b5a985fed85bfc",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"685a977aa1f8b6f8ec48fd9b94063704f408148948329ed2d729f63e54b31a3d"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-04-22\n📝 Original message:On 4/22/22 9:28 AM, James O'Beirne wrote:\n\u003e \u003e There are at least three or four separate covenants designs that have\n\u003e \u003e been posted to this list, and I don't see why we're even remotely\n\u003e \u003e talking about a specific one as something to move forward with at\n\u003e \u003e this point.\n\u003e \n\u003e To my knowledge none of these other proposals (drafts, really) have\n\u003e actual implementations let alone the many sample usages that exist for\n\u003e CTV.\n\nYou can fix this! Don't point to something you can easily remedy in the short-term as an argument \nfor or against something in the long-term.\n\n\u003e Given that the \"covenants\" discussion has been ongoing for years\n\u003e now, I think the lack of other serious proposals is indicative of the\n\u003e difficulty inherent in coming up with a preferable alternative to CTV.\n\nI'd think its indicative of the lack of interest in serious covenants designs from many of the \nhighly-qualified people who could be working on them. There are many reasons for that. If there's \none positive thing from the current total mess, its that hopefully there will be a renewed interest \nin researching things and forming conclusions.\n\n\n\u003e CTV is about as simple a covenant system as can be devised - its limits\n\u003e relative to more \"general\" covenant designs notwithstanding.\n\u003e The level of review around CTV's design is well beyond the other\n\u003e sketches for possible designs that this list has seen.\n\n[citation needed]\n\nMatt",
"sig": "3e685be6327281619b80d3da047b1508328cd83b69882ab902475699012e96c4570deb2d1029a47f86b62a669c6f3c4fa8042e32bdca1d365c19979fc2a9408f"
}