that is true, but I did say "same outcome", because of course G. Ment will never give consent for A. Citizen () to leave the
Of course, A. Citizen can use some form of persuasion/coercion to change G. Ments' mind in the 2 of 2 scheme, whereas no amount of persuasion can undo an infinitely recursive covenant.
it was a totally unbacked, unexplained statement of fact, so worth as much as the author's reputation IOW
2. Don't trade with people that do
Well, yes. It's only possible to cease trading after the fact, but it's still useful. Some people you trade with will always keep coins you trade with them away from such covenants, you can check for yourself. Preferentially trade with those that do so the longest, ideally those who you observe 'never' involve your (previous) coins in coercive covenants. And if a sufficient number of Bitcoiners stuck to this, it would be difficult for people to simultaneously maintain unencumbered outputs and outputs in coercive covenants. Then I guess we would check the rate at which the poison was spreading before we take any other route (not sure what, but probably carefully re-designed altcoin would be the most drastic option)
Coercive covenants should be more easily identified onchain compared to coercive multisigs, so in that respect they're better.