Bitcoin controversy: What are the technical reasons against BIP-119?

There are many reasons why Bitcoin’s block size should not be increased, the most important one being that it will increase centralization. This article explains what those technical reasons are and gives you evidence to support them.

The “bnp paribas crypto” is a controversy that has been going on for a while. The controversy mainly consists of the technical reasons against BIP-119.

What are the technical arguments against BIP-119 in the Bitcoin debate?


Important information:

Some argue that BIP-119 has not yet been adequately reviewed on a technical level.

The covenants conceal certain hazards that might otherwise go unnoticed.

BIP-119, or Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 119, is the idea of developer Jeremy Rubin, who wants to include sophisticated parameters for Bitcoin transactions, such as the ability to send some bitcoins to a certain address alone and not to another.

But, more crucially, those bitcoins may be conditionally spent in the future, meaning that once given to an initial address, they can only be forwarded to other specified addresses from there.

Covenants are a form of limitation that can be implemented using the OP CTV command, which can be used to build a vault in two different ways. For example, money from a cold or hardware wallet could only be withdrawn to another address controlled by the fund owner using this command.

Furthermore, BIP 119 may enable batch transactions to be performed in a consistent and harmonic manner. For example, when a particular quantity of bitcoins is placed in a wallet, subsequent payments to other addresses may be made from that wallet.

Thus, a company owner or management might theoretically deposit the amount of bitcoins required to pay their employees into a wallet, and payments would be sent in a timely and automatic way to each of the workers’ wallets or purses from this wallet.

On the right, you can see how OP CTV may be used to manage a Bitcoin transaction flow.

Batch transactions of this kind may also be scheduled to execute with different parameters. When network expenses are less than 4 satoshis per byte, for example (vbyte, the data weight of these transactions).

Is OP CTV a really safe development, from a technological standpoint?

The Bitcoin development mail continues to discuss OP CTV, the feature added by BIP-119. These are some of the most current technical viewpoints expressed by some of these programmers.

To begin with, according to developer Anthony Towns’ research, the majority of CTV test transactions seem to be written in Sapio, a language designed by Jeremy Rubin with the objective of “creating smart contracts on Bitcoin.” Towns believes that this is why CTV hasn’t received much public criticism yet.

Furthermore, he feels that implementing BIP-119 would put all Bitcoin users at danger, even those who do not want to utilize its features, owing to the adjustments that must be made to the consensus process.



Developer Matt Corallo echoed this sentiment, warning that any upgrade or soft fork of this kind should help as many people as possible.

Russell O’Connor, a developer, pointed out that the OP CTV script or command doesn’t appear to be very compatible with other Bitcoin scripts like base58check, bech32 (SegWit), or bech32m (Taproot), so wallets would need to develop tools that allow BIP-119 to be used without causing problems with portfolio address coordination.

David Harding voiced his fear that CTV might be a sort of agreement or covenant that is not commonly utilized in the long run, either owing to low user demand or because alternative types of covenants with superior design arise. “This would burden future developers with maintaining the code and analyzing what CTV’s possible interactions with other prospective consensus modifications would be like,” he stated.

Unlike the political viewpoints we covered in a previous episode, which tend to be seen more often on social networks, this collection of thoughts is the most technical. BIP-119’s need and feasibility are currently being debated among Bitcoin Core developers.

The Dark Forerunner: Gregory Maxwell’s Covenants

Developer Gregory Maxwell outlined a sort of BTC spending limitation or covenant based on the CoinWitness system as early as August 2013. However, as an intellectual exercise, he presented several terrifying scenarios in which these constraints may be implemented.

In a blog post, he basically stated that by adding arbitrary conditions to spend a few bitcoins, things may go wrong from now on. By forcing bitcoins to be spent in a certain manner, Maxwell claims, “you will have established a money that is permanently subject to a spending requirement.” [covenant] and limit its usage and that of its successors indefinitely, reducing its fungibility.

In other words, these bitcoins conditioned to be spent in a specific way would be distinct from the rest of the bitcoins circulating in the network, potentially causing others to refuse to accept or transact with them, as well as having a different purchase and sale price than the rest of the market.

As a result, Maxwell urged visitors of the BitcoinTalk forum, where he submitted his argument, to come up with more terrible covenants. Back then, the bitcoin community reacted.

The other technological problem is determining the optimum method for reaching Bitcoin consensus.

One of the most contentious aspects of the argument was how Jeremy Rubin planned to activate BIP-119, threatening to create his own client and appeal to a hasty trial by miners, as occurred with Taproot.

In this sense, the most contentious issue was not the BIP-119’s technological capabilities, but the optimal activation mechanism. McClelland, Keagan, a developer, uses the BIP-119 debate to suggest a discussion on the best approach to gain agreement in Bitcoin.

Along with the CTV debate, a new topic has emerged that was not completely addressed at the Taproot activation. There is a lot of debate regarding what constitutes a Speedy Trial and what does not, as well as what BIP 8 [user-activated soft-fork] is and is not.

Because there is no mechanism to measure a user’s support for suggested modifications, individuals usually assert that their social circle accepts or rejects a proposal, and that their circles reflect the majority of Bitcoin users as a whole.

McClelland, Keagan

In proposing this conversation, McClelland argues that appealing to miners may not be the greatest choice for making modifications to the Bitcoin software since their motivations may vary from those of the consumer market (for example, a soft fork that raises the minimum commissions per transaction or that increases the block production time).

Other developers added to the conversation by suggesting other techniques for activating this sort of proposal.

Given the theoretical precedence on covenants set by Gregory Maxwell and the early Bitcoin community, the developers are unsure if BIP-119 is beneficial for all users and the protocol itself.

We’ll go through the social aspect of this discussion and what it means for Bitcoin in a later part.

The “bitcoin banned countries list” is a list of countries that have banned bitcoin. The reasons for the bans vary, but the technical reason against BIP-119 is that it would not allow miners to be able to mine blocks without also verifying transactions in them.

Related Tags

  • bnp paribas crypto custody
  • bip 119 bitcoin
  • bnp exchange
  • op ctv bitcoin
  • bnp paribas reddit