Oddbean new post about | logout
▲ ▼
Cody | 5 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 💯 I've been barking about tx density improvements as well.  It also helps crowd out spam like runes/brc20
▲ ▼
techfeudalist | 5 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 The issue I have with covenant proposals is that I don’t understand if they can work for small everyday amounts in an environment with rising fees. 

For example, if it costs $10 in fees to make a bitcoin transaction, can I get access to $5 in a shared covenant UTXO?

Covenants don’t seem to be a perfect solution because they don’t consider the cost of making the transaction. 

To me, the future looks like Fedimint, Liquid, etc where we have geographically distributed federations managing ecash, etc. 

Those federations would allow for massive transaction density.
▲ ▼
jimbocoin | 5 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 Covenants will not, by themselves, allow unlimited scaling on L1. What they enable is greater density of key-holders on chain by sharing UTXOs. This could mean multi-party Lightning channels, for example.

Pegged shitcoins are still shitcoins. Holding your keys on Liquid or an eCash mint doesn’t make it sovereign. You can still get rugged by the issuer, or State regulators taking down the issuer, or hackers hacking the issuer, etc. etc.