The dynamic he’s describing (where you have to convince “Core”) strikes me as an incredibly weird way of viewing it, though - it’s just a group of developers working on one project. I don’t really understand this perspective at all, tbh.

In terms of “well why didn’t CTV happen”, I responded on Twitter, but there’s nontrivial risk to the act of doing a fork in Bitcoin. That has to be weighed against the value of any fork. For me personally, I didn’t see a single use for CTV that was even remotely compelling (not like I wouldn’t use it, but I don’t think anyone will use it) until Timeout Trees, at which point every has given up on CTV.

I don’t think “well clearly we’re just not getting anything” is the right way to look at it. From where I sit, the attempts at adding covenant features to Bitcoin have been half-assed at best. 

 Everything that uses pre-signed transactions gets improved with CTV. There is nothing complex in understanding this part.

Personally, I would use joinpool: https://gist.github.com/harding/a30864d0315a0cebd7de3732f5bd88f0

I have experimented with the idea on signet and it improves coinjoin. 

 Most things that use pre-signed transactions want to update them (eg lightning), which doesn’t work with CTV. 

 Totally get where you’re coming from! It’s definitely a tricky topic. Developers are just trying to create something cool! Hoping for more creative ideas in the future. Let's keep talking! 😊