yeah, that's the thing i don't like about bip-110. in clause 3 of the rules it enforces, they don't allow spending of "unrecognised" witness or tapleaf versions. well idc about tapleaf, fuck taproot. but UASF *means* creating "unrecognised" witness program versions and anyone intending to do that has to either patch their node to lift that restriction for their "recognised" witness program version or use another fork of the node or version or whatever. it's just silly because - taproot is the problem. neither dathonohm nor lukedashjr think there is a problem with taproot, with its lack of hashed pubkey, or, fundamentally, tapscript witness code. just not "big" witnesses. they also don't seem to care to touch the idea that witness discount should never have applied to taproot in the first place. the witness discount was originally sold as an incentive for people to move their utxos to segwit, and make them secure against blind signers - which can be tricked by legacy transactions to sign a transaction the user doesn't intend. so it all smells fishy to me. acting as presumed gatekeepers for uasf. not rejecting taproot or taproot witness discount. the whole root of the ordinals problem is precisely the taproot witness discount. the end.