Remember the blocksize wars? The bcashers wanted bitcoin to be internet money and a medium of exchange. They were willing to compromise bitcoin’s decentralization to do that. This is the same debate all over again. Like those bcashers, Rusty wants low fees and is willing to compromise bitcoin’s decentralization to do it. He’s just a bcasher pretending to be a bitcoiner, using the same tired arguments. We need to ask ourselves: 1) Can the issue be solved in any other way, other than a change to the core protocol? Have we waited long enough for other solutions to emerge? 2) If we must change the core protocol, what is the most limited change we can make that actually solves the problem? You can see that Rusty is not thinking about these questions at all. Bitcoin is our hope for the future to replace central banks. We need to say focused on that goal.

I definitely agree with the philosophy of moving slow without breaking things. Also, I believe that establishing circular economies with what we have now will do a lot more to replace central banks than covenants potentially can. My problem here is that Saylor is part of a camp that is obstructing the conversation entirely. We won't get to those two critical questions when people are conflating software engineers with lawyers. I can't speak for what Rusty is advocating for, so I'll read that up in the meantime

She uses analogies to communicate. He wants as wide audience as possible.