📅 Original date posted:2022-02-10
📝 Original message:On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 08:34:30PM -0800, Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Whether [recursive covenants] is an issue or not precluding this sort
> of design or not, I defer to others.
For reference, I believe the last time the merits of allowing recursive
covenants was discussed at length on this list[1], not a single person
replied to say that they were opposed to the idea.
I would like to suggest that anyone opposed to recursive covenants speak
for themselves (if any intelligent such people exist). Citing the risk
of recursive covenants without presenting a credible argument for the
source of that risk feels to me like (at best) stop energy[2] and (at
worst) FUD.
-Dave
[1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-July/019203.html
[2] http://radio-weblogs.com/0107584/stories/2002/05/05/stopEnergyByDaveWiner.html
(thanks to AJ who told me about stop energy one time when I was
producing it)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220211/c471f94d/attachment.sig>;
David A. Harding [ARCHIVE] /
npub16d…x4wrd
2023-06-07 23:03:26
in reply to nevent1q…aa3x
Author Public Key
npub16dt55fpq3a8r6zpphd9xngxr46zzqs75gna9cj5vf8pknyv2d7equx4wrdPublished at
2023-06-07 23:03:26Event JSON
{
"id": "7dfc446bd184fc9fbe10504bab36f9ba8666e8b5f0b67eae27b131a87c6c2a45",
"pubkey": "d3574a24208f4e3d0821bb4a69a0c3ae842043d444fa5c4a8c49c369918a6fb2",
"created_at": 1686179006,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"59ef3747260b332a5c157c2d93ab417af21ce8ed38e69348e0cc8995183e6119",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a23dbf6c6cc83e14cc3df4e56cc71845f611908084cfe620e83e40c06ccdd3d0"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-02-10\n📝 Original message:On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 08:34:30PM -0800, Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e Whether [recursive covenants] is an issue or not precluding this sort\n\u003e of design or not, I defer to others.\n\nFor reference, I believe the last time the merits of allowing recursive\ncovenants was discussed at length on this list[1], not a single person\nreplied to say that they were opposed to the idea.\n\nI would like to suggest that anyone opposed to recursive covenants speak\nfor themselves (if any intelligent such people exist). Citing the risk\nof recursive covenants without presenting a credible argument for the\nsource of that risk feels to me like (at best) stop energy[2] and (at\nworst) FUD.\n\n-Dave\n\n[1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-July/019203.html\n[2] http://radio-weblogs.com/0107584/stories/2002/05/05/stopEnergyByDaveWiner.html\n (thanks to AJ who told me about stop energy one time when I was\n producing it)\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 833 bytes\nDesc: not available\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220211/c471f94d/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "08450177ebb9046aedec917550dc9021c145fa862bda458c1f39befb7a7b2a020c7992d5db0d0413a0b1d296c03708f55f7a6d990bbe11fccbc325c8bf023a68"
}