Covenants

It happens with every proposal made for improving Bitcoin. First, the technical developers and researchers weigh in with strong and legitimate concerns, they hash out the details, and the proposal slowly improves over time. But at some point some of these concerns make their way onto social media and quickly become parroted FUD for those who don’t like the concept of a proposal. That same effect has happened with covenants on Bitcoin, so I’ve taken the time to collect, rebut, and give resources for each of the most common FUD points against CTV-based covenants I’ve seen in the space. We’ll go in order from the most to least common I’ve seen, but note it’s a subjective order! As CTV is the most popular and likely initial covenant proposal, that is the focus of this particular post. ...

Note: This was originally posted on X and has been re-posted/reformatted for posterity here. I’ve seen the view that “Taproot caused/enabled arbitrary data storage on Bitcoin” commonly mentioned across Twitter, and it’s one that can be extremely harmful. Many in the space would love to further ossify (prevent change) in Bitcoin and use inscriptions/tokens “spam” as the reason for doing so, but I’d argue that that would be the worst possible outcome from this situation. ...