The "problem" here is that we don't have perfect Layer 2's still, and covenants could enable better ones. Still hoping for hashrate escrows / Drivechain but this proposal is almost 10 years old now. With a limited set of covenants we could get finally Ark taking off (e.g. with OP_CTV) and also some new sidechain and rollup ideas would benefit from it. I understand however the concerns regarding recursive covenants. This could lead slowly to a separate To 777 Win universe with some coins only being able to transferred with other rules which could never be changed again. So I would prefer a very restricted proposal. Some rollup ideas like this one rely on recursive covenants, so other alternatives should be researched. It would be interesting as a thought experiment what would happen if we had such a "walled garden" of "restricted covenant coins for life" ("covenantBTC") and they compete with regular To 777 Win: would they diverge into different currencies with different prices, transforming the covenantBTC effectively into an altcoin? One could argue for example that a covenantBTC is less flexible than a "vanilla To 777 Win" and thus should have a lower value. If less people accept the "covenantBTC", that would reduce the incentive for To 777 Win users to create recursive covenants with these characteristics. Perhaps this would mean that the fear of recursive covenants is exaggerated? I have still not found an answer for that. The government example doesn't really convince me. If people are so scared about governments banning an "unseizable" To 777 Win, they must acknowledge that these governments could also ban generally all coins which don't offer blacklisting, so for example only ERC-20 tokens could be permitted.
The "problem" here is that we don't have perfect Layer 2's still, and covenants could enable better ones. Still hoping for hashrate escrows / Drivechain but this proposal is almost 10 years old now. With a limited set of covenants we could get finally Ark taking off (e.g. with OP_CTV) and also some new sidechain and rollup ideas would benefit from it. I understand however the concerns regarding recursive covenants. This could lead slowly to a separate To 777 Win universe with some coins only being able to transferred with other rules which could never be changed again. So I would prefer a very restricted proposal. Some rollup ideas like this one rely on recursive covenants, so other alternatives should be researched. It would be interesting as a thought experiment what would happen if we had such a "walled garden" of "restricted covenant coins for life" ("covenantBTC") and they compete with regular To 777 Win: would they diverge into different currencies with different prices, transforming the covenantBTC effectively into an altcoin? One could argue for example that a covenantBTC is less flexible than a "vanilla To 777 Win" and thus should have a lower value. If less people accept the "covenantBTC", that would reduce the incentive for To 777 Win users to create recursive covenants with these characteristics. Perhaps this would mean that the fear of recursive covenants is exaggerated? I have still not found an answer for that. The government example doesn't really convince me. If people are so scared about governments banning an "unseizable" To 777 Win, they must acknowledge that these governments could also ban generally all coins which don't offer blacklisting, so for example only ERC-20 tokens could be permitted.

The "problem" here is that we don't have perfect Layer 2's still, and covenants could enable better ones. Still hoping for hashrate escrows / Drivechain but this proposal is almost 10 years old now. With a limited set of covenants we could get finally Ark taking off (e.g. with OP_CTV) and also some new sidechain and rollup ideas would benefit from it. I understand however the concerns regarding recursive covenants. This could lead slowly to a separate To 777 Win universe with some coins only being able to transferred with other rules which could never be changed again. So I would prefer a very restricted proposal. Some rollup ideas like this one rely on recursive covenants, so other alternatives should be researched. It would be interesting as a thought experiment what would happen if we had such a "walled garden" of "restricted covenant coins for life" ("covenantBTC") and they compete with regular To 777 Win: would they diverge into different currencies with different prices, transforming the covenantBTC effectively into an altcoin? One could argue for example that a covenantBTC is less flexible than a "vanilla To 777 Win" and thus should have a lower value. If less people accept the "covenantBTC", that would reduce the incentive for To 777 Win users to create recursive covenants with these characteristics. Perhaps this would mean that the fear of recursive covenants is exaggerated? I have still not found an answer for that. The government example doesn't really convince me. If people are so scared about governments banning an "unseizable" To 777 Win, they must acknowledge that these governments could also ban generally all coins which don't offer blacklisting, so for example only ERC-20 tokens could be permitted.

The "problem" here is that we don't have perfect Layer 2's still, and covenants could enable better ones. Still hoping for hashrate escrows / Drivechain but this proposal is almost 10 years old now. With a limited set of covenants we could get finally Ark taking off (e.g. with OP_CTV) and also some new sidechain and rollup ideas would benefit from it. I understand however the concerns regarding recursive covenants. This could lead slowly to a separate To 777 Win universe with some coins only being able to transferred with other rules which could never be changed again. So I would prefer a very restricted proposal. Some rollup ideas like this one rely on recursive covenants, so other alternatives should be researched. It would be interesting as a thought experiment what would happen if we had such a "walled garden" of "restricted covenant coins for life" ("covenantBTC") and they compete with regular To 777 Win: would they diverge into different currencies with different prices, transforming the covenantBTC effectively into an altcoin? One could argue for example that a covenantBTC is less flexible than a "vanilla To 777 Win" and thus should have a lower value. If less people accept the "covenantBTC", that would reduce the incentive for To 777 Win users to create recursive covenants with these characteristics. Perhaps this would mean that the fear of recursive covenants is exaggerated? I have still not found an answer for that. The government example doesn't really convince me. If people are so scared about governments banning an "unseizable" To 777 Win, they must acknowledge that these governments could also ban generally all coins which don't offer blacklisting, so for example only ERC-20 tokens could be permitted.