Prayank [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2022-02-26 📝 Original message:Good morning ZmnSCPxj, > ...
📅 Original date posted:2022-02-26
📝 Original message:Good morning ZmnSCPxj,
> Of course, I know of no such technique, but given that a technique (Drivechains) which before would have required its own consensus change, turns out to be implementable inside recursive covenants, then I wonder if there are other things that would have required their own consensus change that are now *also* implementable purely in recursive covenants.
Agree. I would be interested to know what is NOT possible once we have recursive covenants.
> if there is *now* consensus that Drivechains are not bad, go ahead, add recursive covenants (but please can we add `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` and `OP_CTV` first?)
Agree and I think everything can be done in separate soft forks.
--
Prayank
A3B1 E430 2298 178F
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220226/42c42eac/attachment.html>
📝 Original message:Good morning ZmnSCPxj,
> Of course, I know of no such technique, but given that a technique (Drivechains) which before would have required its own consensus change, turns out to be implementable inside recursive covenants, then I wonder if there are other things that would have required their own consensus change that are now *also* implementable purely in recursive covenants.
Agree. I would be interested to know what is NOT possible once we have recursive covenants.
> if there is *now* consensus that Drivechains are not bad, go ahead, add recursive covenants (but please can we add `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` and `OP_CTV` first?)
Agree and I think everything can be done in separate soft forks.
--
Prayank
A3B1 E430 2298 178F
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220226/42c42eac/attachment.html>