我的理解里，convenants是增加BTC链上的script的能力/编程能力，我瞄了一下好像和sidechain/L2/扩容，没啥直接关系啊。 但我个人很支持这个方向 (我一直的观点就是扩张BTC主链的编程/smart contract能力,但在BTC社区阻力很大)。
问题是，它需要BIP 119，我印象有其他侧链也需要这个。 而且BIP 119似乎就会带来问题：会破坏部分BTC的fungible特性。但是，但是最大的问题是BIP119和其他BIP一样，都不知道啥时候才可能 “有那个可能”被矿工采纳。 更不用说，BIP 119 还在Draft的阶段。
关于utxo和account base的链的问题，我猜没所谓。假如LN roll up你都可以接受的话，那L2上和L1差异巨大的什么implement的方式，只要提交到主链是安全的话问题不大。
quotingThis one I have to disagree with. I’ve mentioned this several times because I really want to get at the truth to the claim that it isn’t Turing complete. I’ve done my own thinking on the matter and concluded that it must be Turing complete. I think the reason for the debate is a matter of nitpicking. I know bitcoin script is not Turing complete because it doesn’t have loops nor recursion of any kind. However, across multiple transactions, one can achieve recursion on a script! That’s what makes Bitcoin Turing complete; it’s not just the script. I find this aspect fascinating.
nevent1q…y4p2
I was excited for BIP119 because it would introduce covenants which are key to achieving this recursion. Though, the only difference with being able to do recursion on BTC is that processing time would be take time because of the limited block size. The program could live in the mempool for a considerable amount of time.
Anyway, that’s what I understand. If you have some insights to share, I’m all ears.
有人也聊过这个，我问过关于BIP 119的问题，没下文了