Andreas Antonopoulos’ warnings about the impact of BIP-199 on Bitcoin (BTC)


Andreas Antonopouloseducator, author, and bitcoin (BTC) entrepreneur, expressed his concern about the consequences of the proposed bitcoin improvement (Bitcoin Improvement ProposalBIP) 119 which he claims could “kill” Bitcoin.

Source: Adobe/Siarhei

Proposed by jeremy rubinbitcoin developer and founder of the bitcoin research and development organization JudicaBIP-119, also known as CheckTemplateVerify (CTV), is a “soft fork” that aims to enable new use cases for the Bitcoin network by adding a type of “covenant”.

A covenant is similar to what is called a smart contract on the Ethereum (ETH) blockchain. Simply put, a covenant is a mechanism that would allow users to enforce conditions on how BTC in a wallet can be transferred in the future.

Currently, Bitcoin’s programmability is largely limited to the basic level of transactions. For example, using Bitcoin Script, a programmer can restrict what can be done before a transaction is made. Similarly, using a timelock, it is possible to set a specific delay before a transaction can be completed.

Covenant aims to bring more programmability to bitcoin by allowing programmers to control how bitcoins can be spent in the future. Thanks to Covenant, it will be possible to whitelist or blacklist certain addresses, which will limit where the BTC can be spent, even for the person who has the key to these bitcoins.

Unintended consequences

While the author of BIP-119 asserts that the proposal essentially comprises simple undertakings, Antonopoulos argued that the proposal could potentially lead to unintended or unintended consequences.

Specifically, Antonopoulos believes it could “kill” Bitcoin if it supports recursive clauses. We talk about a recursive clause when a programmer not only limits the next transaction, but also imposes a limit such that it limits the next transaction, which limits the next transaction, etc.

This would create very significant challenges for Bitcoin. For example, using a recursive alliance, a programmer could limit the list of addresses where BTC could be sent in the future. That way, that specific BTC would no longer be fungible and would stand out from other bitcoins that can be sent to anyone, creating a new category of BTC.

Also, when users have the ability to blacklist certain addresses, it is highly likely that governments and regulators will step in and start banning certain addresses.

“And then you’ll basically end up with PayPal, but not very scalable,” Antonopoulos said.

It should be noted that this is the most pessimistic scenario. Nevertheless, there is more controversy surrounding the proposal.

For his part, Rubin says that BIP-119 is ready and has asked that its implementation be carried out through the rapid test process: miners would then have three or four months to signal their support for the proposal. During this period, if more than 95% of miners vote in favor of the proposal within a two-week period, it will be activated.

However, for a proposal to be implemented, it must have massive support from users, developers, wallets and exchanges, not just miners. And if a proposal is adopted without the support of all these categories, it could even lead to a hard fork.

For now, the proposal does not appear to have overwhelming support from all of those categories, also known as consensus constituencies, Antonopoulos said.

He added that the proposal also needs to undergo extensive testing, review and audits before being implemented.

Echoing this point of view, Adam Backco-founder of blockchain technology company Blockstream, said the proposal needed to be thoroughly considered. He also argued that developers should consider other alternatives before moving forward.

“It’s disappointing to see someone try to circumvent or ignore the exam or any other reasoning,” he said. tweeted. Back said there are “multiple alternatives that have been proposed on the dev-list”.

Likewise, Matt Coralloalso co-founder of Blockstream and open source engineer at Block/Spiral, valued that the pressure exerted on the BIP-119 is “evil in almost every way”. “Instead of collaborative engineering, it feels like ‘I built this, let’s do this’ while ignoring any feedback,” he wrote.

Rubin, however, listed a number of reasons why he thinks the proposal is valid. Among the most notable benefits, the proposal would improve Bitcoin’s programmability, allowing payments to be scheduled for a specific date or multiple dates.

Follow our affiliate links:

  • To buy cryptocurrencies in the SEPA Zone, Europe and French citizensvisit Coinhouse
  • To buy cryptocurrency in Canadavisit Bitbuy
  • To generate interest with your bitcoinsgo to the BlockFi website
  • To secure or store your cryptocurrenciesget Ledger or Trezor wallets
  • To trade your cryptos anonymouslyinstall the NordVPN app

To invest in cryptocurrency mining or masternodes:

To accumulate coins while playing:

  • In poker on the CoinPoker gaming platform
  • To a global fantasy football on the Sorare platform

Stay informed with our free weekly newsletter and to our social networks:





Source link -95