From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 431A4C002D for ; Thu, 12 May 2022 12:20:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C2C760E5B for ; Thu, 12 May 2022 12:20:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hOFnTq-sXPeP for ; Thu, 12 May 2022 12:20:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-4027.protonmail.ch (mail-4027.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.27]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70DA360776 for ; Thu, 12 May 2022 12:20:11 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 12:20:01 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail2; t=1652358009; x=1652617209; bh=EAYQxrcmep2nc7HTsJd+houGBtugtnZkkPUMX60yHqI=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To: References:Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To: Feedback-ID:Message-ID; b=G2X7PrS1p+SOGmK3rhC+FCmUvXDRcnE0/K5uUg1N/RmYD7zQM9vJSSH63WhsPIgW/ MNyzkbW/JwGDuqhi9+ez//d3XiLANf4JZMUzZzyWJEiLrcXWILrICjMSp26R6pA7Cu 2ZWIaM+rxR2fpuDZ2mw82fYByuWFUB75+MQZXP0iAsu0J2wHPMUyr6hUpH5gSpBEqu dFxa1ItHwFs9Y/evbUmrZetxmyzU6dSeGUlqErxFgDgqIWgC6fH23EfYug+8YyA9vp 0KUsncw6vDBBZWxLQ0m/x18VDQbyOAykrhm8X9mwRgEUFJ1x3pSc/K0VI1vt1OUc3B JT46kWuGJea0g== To: =?utf-8?Q?Jorge_Tim=C3=B3n?= , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion From: ZmnSCPxj Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Feedback-ID: 2872618:user:proton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Billy Tetrud Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV BIP Meeting #8 Notes X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 12:20:12 -0000 Good morning Jorge, > I fail to understand why non recursive covenants are called covenants at = all. Probably I'm missing something, but I guess that's another topic. A covenant simply promises that something will happen in the future. A recursive covenant guarantees that the same thing will happen in the futu= re. Thus, non-recursive covenants can be useful. Consider `OP_EVICT`, for example, which is designed for a very specific use= -case, and avoids recursion. Regards, ZmnSCPxj