{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","title":"LogicallyMinded wrote","author_name":"LogicallyMinded (npub1s0…2rqf5)","author_url":"https://yabu.me/npub1s0fs9dwztm2rukm42vh6df4a5gwykclf75tgyeuc75t0cs2eh8rsu2rqf5","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://yabu.me","html":"I’m surprised there is no more outrage from bitcoiners regarding #covenants. After doing a cursory research on the topic, it seems that covenants would mean the end of permissionless #Bitcoin and the generalization of #KYC-ed #BTC.\n\n- Covenants can enforce spending outputs to KYCed addresses only. \n- Covenants can enforce receiving BTC from KYCed addresses only\n- #Covenant rules applied to a given output would propagate to future spending of this output. \n\nIn short, all BTC leaving a regulated entity could only be spend to KYCed addresses forever. \n\nMaybe I missed it, but I haven’t seen the plebs being outrage about this risk for Bitcoin. I heard a lot more criticism about  #drivechains though. This tell me that some of the vocal opposition is either controlled opposition or uninformed.\n\n#OPCAT #OPCTV #drivechain"}