Bitcoin's governance is at a critical juncture with BIP-110's final window. Key proposals for Consensus Cleanup (BIP-54), covenants (BIP-446/448), and quantum migration (BIP-361) are being debated, aiming to address protocol weaknesses, enhance self-custody, and prepare for future cryptographic threats.
Michael Saylor frames Bitcoin's protocol debate, including BIP-110, as a constitutional crisis, arguing against changes that could alter Bitcoin's core rules and economic rights.
Part 3 of a Bitcoin covenant series details SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT (BIP 118), a proposed soft-fork upgrade. It allows signatures to authorize spending compatible UTXOs without committing to a specific outpoint, enhancing Layer-2 protocols but introducing replay risks.
OP_CTV, proposed by Jeremy Rubin, defines Bitcoin spending conditions in a template structure. It verifies transaction outputs against a commitment hash, enabling complex vault constructions and trust-minimized smart contract primitives.
Bitcoin covenants, a concept revived for protocol development, could enable new layer 2 solutions, non-custodial vaults, and efficient payment channels. However, most implementations require a soft fork, a contentious process given the diversification of consensus clients and advocacy for protocol ossification by figures like Michael Saylor. Covenants aim to allow users to impose future spending restrictions on coins, a feature absent in current Bitcoin Script.
