TL;DR: More key holders = number go up.
Money is a pure speculative good. No matter what the market thinks of your other assets, you speculate that people will want your money. The more people who want your money, the more valuable it is.
Densifying allows more people to hold keys on chain. More people can use the money. More people with a stake in the censorship-resistance and decentralization of #Bitcoin.
It is my belief that more is better regarding people with keys on chain. People who want the money and want to secure it make it more valuable.
For these reasons, I am SELFISHLY pro densification (pro covenant). More key holders = number go up.
Replies (4)
The number is going to go up even without your new opcodes, which threaten the security and soundness of the network. Your new opcodes and "innovation" are not required for security, decentralization, nor "number go up" so you can stuff the new opcodes up your ass.
Bitcoin is feature complete.
What I find most amusing is that my 23 word response got "TLDR" from you. This lack of focus and attention deficit issue is probably the reason why you would want to endanger bitcoin by adding new and completely unnecessary opcodes with unknown side-effects to the network.
The only people who want to "innovate" on bitcoin are the people who don't have much of it.
Can you please explain now covenants would solve the problem?
I specifically have concerns around how they would work in practice if the fees are high and the amounts of bitcoin in the shared UTXO are low.
"Bitcoin is feature complete."
You keep repeating this mantra. When did this happen? Before or after we did a soft-fork to enable lightning? It seems you are unaware of this?
Because there are things like vaults which do require additional features. Similarly multi-party lightning.
Your absolutist position seems quite hard to justify, though I'm trying to give you an much credit as I can, lest this become Twitter.
