<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><title>LogicallyMinded wrote</title><author_name>LogicallyMinded (npub1s0…2rqf5)</author_name><author_url>https://yabu.me/npub1s0fs9dwztm2rukm42vh6df4a5gwykclf75tgyeuc75t0cs2eh8rsu2rqf5</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://yabu.me</provider_url><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.&#xA;&#xA;- Covenants can enforce spending outputs to KYCed addresses only. &#xA;- Covenants can enforce receiving BTC from KYCed addresses only&#xA;- #Covenant rules applied to a given output would propagate to future spending of this output. &#xA;&#xA;In short, all BTC leaving a regulated entity could only be spend to KYCed addresses forever. &#xA;&#xA;Maybe 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.&#xA;&#xA;#OPCAT #OPCTV #drivechain</html></oembed>