BIP 119 — CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY

BIP 119 (CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY) proposes a consensus soft fork adding an opcode that constrains a spending transaction to match a committed template — a deliberately non-recursive covenant enabling congestion control, vault constructions, and payment pools. An activation attempt in 2022 was contentious and did not proceed; renewed activation pushes (often pairing CTV with an OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK-style opcode) have kept it prominent. Repository status: Draft — not activated.

⚠️ Time-sensitive — not re-verified since `asOf` (2026-07-22). The specification citation above is canonical and does not expire; two clauses around it do. That the repository status is still Draft and not activated, and that "renewed activation pushes (often pairing CTV with an OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK-style opcode) have kept it prominent," both describe an active campaign whose momentum is the thing under dispute — and the closing misstatement, "CTV already activated — it has not," is a live status assertion, not a fact about the document. asOf records the last verification (the BIP header was checked 2026-07-22), not the last edit — any editing since then left the date unchanged because it added no re-verification of activation status. Re-verify the current repository status and any activation attempt against the BIPs repository before repeating either on stage.

Debate relevance: Probably the single most likely proposal to be argued about on stage: activation ethics, covenant risk-benefit, and 'who decides' governance questions all converge on CTV. Common misstatements: "CTV lets third parties freeze or redirect your coins" — it only constrains coins whose owner chose a CTV-encumbered script. "CTV enables recursive covenants" — its templates are intentionally non-recursive. "CTV already activated" — it has not.