Re: Bip 119 conventant script rules are reinforced on l1 or upper layers?
If G. Ment were to lock coins in a recursive covenant which always requires their input to spend all future outputs, then those coins can never leave such a set up, are now non-fungible, and are effectively no longer bitcoin.
that is true, but I did say "same outcome", because of course G. Ment will never consent A. Citizen (
) to leave the Of course, A. Citizen can use some form of persuasion/coercion to change G. Ments' mind, with the 2 of 2, whereas no amount of persuasion can undo an infinitely recursive covenant.
I don't think such a case is possible though with OP_CTV, but I've ready quite a few conflicting opinions on the matter, hence my desire for links and more clarity.
it was a totally unbacked, unexplained statement of fact, so worth as much as the author's reputation IOW
1. Don't enter into such schemes to begin with
2. Don't trade with people that do
1 is easy, 2 is impossible. It is simply not possible for me to know all the different trades you are doing and whether or not you have coins in any such covenants.2. Don't trade with people that do
Well, yes. It's only possible to cease trading after the fact, but it's still useful. Some people you trade with will always keep coins you trade with them away from such covenants, you can check for yourself. Preferentially trade with those that do so the longest, ideally those who 'never' see (previously) your coins spent to coercive covenants.
Coercive covenants should be more easily identified onchain compared to coercive multisigs, so in that respect they're better.