Jayson / Jayson is on Nostr

Bitcoin OG. Hardware Product Development. Engineer

Last Notes

2024-10-08 18:58:16

- reply

Lightning coins are easily withdrawn to be on-chain without any encumbrance to your coins afterward. I don't see how financial authorities/institutions can restrict that or use lightning to segregate/control coins. I don't see the enforcement mechanism.
Are you suggesting all on-chain transactions can be effectively stopped?. Maybe in the extreme case, but has serious property rights issues and hard to enforce worldwide. Adding a covenants erodes your property rights gradually, until you have only the illusion of control of your property. You effectively will need permission to use your coins, just as you do with a Visa card today.
The more programmability that is added to the L1 protocol, the larger the attack vector. The legacy system will use every tool it can to make Bitcoin submit to its control.

2024-10-07 20:12:39

- reply

Yes it course we can know if we receive a coin that has a covenant impairment. And I also understand the potential benefits..That is not the concern.
The problem is that covenants will hurt fungibility by creating classes of coins that have or do not have covenants. This can be much easier to enforce than a multisig scheme. Ultimately exchanges, custodian's and merchants can be forced to only accept coin with approved covenants.. while the captured institutions will have he power to add approved conenants. I can foresee price fragmentation between coins with or without various convenient impairments. Ultimately you will have no choice but to use the approved coins for nearly transactions.
If Bitcoin loses it's special qualities as an uncensorable bearer asset, it i
Will be no different that USDC, JP Morgan coin, or a CBDC, and therefore no more valuable.

2024-10-07 05:09:02

- reply

Covenants have the potential to be extremely dangerous to Bitcoin censorship resistance and fungibility. It allows the enforcement of blacklists, whitelists and the ability to freeze funds and enforce KYC rules.
For instance, a regulated exchange could be required to reject a TX that doesn't have a required covenant attached. And it might attach a covenant the to all withdrawals. Wallets could be legally required to check for certain covenants
The risks outweigh the potential benefits

2024-01-13 20:55:13

- reply

I wish we counted votes like this in the US. Little room for fraud

2023-12-25 00:54:20

- reply

The state sponsored blob will support these projects.
The biggest risk to Bitcoin is if they can pull miner/pool incentives toward anything other than the Bitcoin token itself. Real world assets or financial assets on the Bitcoin chain that earn revenue for miners will give regulators a hook.
Miners will support forks that protect their revenue stream - if that stream has "bonus" revenue (merge mining) from other assets such as stable coins, they will care less about the decentralized and uncensorable benefits of BTC.
Ordinals as jpegs are not a threat, but tokens for regulatable assets are.