There are anywhere between 7 and 12 covenant soft fork proposals for Bitcoin.
You can see most of them on the
Covenants Support Wiki or on the
covenants.info page.They include:
-
BIP 119 CTV-
BIP 346 OP_TXHASH-
BIP 347 OP_CAT-
BIP 348 CHECKSIGFROMSTACK-
BIP 440, 441 (The Great Script Restoration)-
BIP 442 OP_PAIRCOMMIT -
BIP 443 OP_CHECKCONTRACTVERIFY-
BIP 446 OP_TEMPLATEHASH-
BIP 448 Rebindable Transactions I'm sure there are a number that I neglected to include. There are also various combinations of these, notably
LNHANCE which is currently in its signalling window. And there are BIP 54 (Great Consensus Cleanup) and BIP 110 (Reduce Data Temporary Soft Fork). And then there are the quantum proposals (
BIP 360 is the only I think that has a number, though). I imagine we will have more proposals before too long.
I'm in no rush to see Bitcoin change, but I'm curious about some of the covenants soft fork proposals and I wish all the air hadn't been sucked out of those conversations by filterers and treasury companies. I try to pay attention and educate myself on these various alternatives, but it is honestly pretty daunting. I'd love to feel like I had a clear idea of one or two proposals that I like and could back.
I was looking at Stacker News today and saw this question:
What year does avoiding a soft fork become riskier than implementing one? A lot of the discussion there was about how nobody really felt like they had a good handle on the trade-offs involved for the different proposals.
Yes, Bitcoin is permissionless and so let a thousand soft fork ideas bloom and all that, but I'm wondering what needs to change to see a coalition form around a reasonable proposal.
