Oddbean

We have two covenants already, CSV and CLTV. they're time locks to control when a tx can be spent. The next basic covenant is CTV, a "UTXO lock", this constrains the TXID so that the transaction is *guaranteed*. This will help us scale via solutions like Ark and Timeout-Trees. My personal favorite is NIC's (Non-interactive Channels), this let's you commit to a lightning channel simply by knowing its Txid + hash. To explain how this would work, I need to withdrawal from my exchange on Friday, I go ahead and commit to making a LN channel with Bob inside my PubKey, and the exchange pays me in their batched tx. Now that I have the commitment, I can at any time, contact Bob to "establish" the channel, with no need of a second transaction. As for Lyn's comment on how the dev community is split. CTV can be upgraded either to Txhash or Template Key and a lot of devs want to skip step 1 and go straight to the advanced covenant proposals. They've even gone as far as to say that they fear CTV would delay txhash. I want txhash too! But it needs years of more bikeshedding before it's even close to ready. CTV is ready, it's been ready for 4 years.

Knowing so very little about what you just said. I am a proponent of the solutions who have been in the public square for years. Those are the ones that I would give survivorship bias to. If they were faulty, there will be long and detailed information on their trade offs.

They seem to me as one of the most important proposals to incorporate in the near future. But as you say, there is no consensus on the different versions. The BIP 119 seems to me to be the most "simple". I only ask for more tests and to explore all the possible unfavorable scans of its implementation.

I’m no longer a fan of generic tech proposals that are not specific to a particular problem. “It could to this or that or maybe that!” My preference is that devs pick a specific problem and solve it in the most narrowest way possible to minimize unknown unintended effects.