There is a social contract with the user base, most of whom are using it as a store of value. Some might not like the SoV use case, but it happens to be dominant. OP_CAT combined with OP_DUP can exponentially increase the memory usage of all the nodes, up to a limit. As memory is more expensive than disk, it's a bit like a block size increase in terms of using resources. Question is whether the use cases justify the risk, and also the risk of a contentious chain split. I am sure many of bitcoin's enemies would stir the pot there. OP_CAT is already enabled on liquid and no one uses it. I think they should show the user base how amazing it is in demos, and if the users say, "wow", that is a better argument.
Replies (1)
“Question is whether the use cases justify the risk, and also the risk of a contentious chain split.”
No, that is not the question.
These clowns don’t even know who they’re supposed to be persuading.
They don’t know what these people would gain from their proposed changes.
They don’t know what those people might risk (ie SoV as you identified).
They in fact don’t know shit about fuck. They whinge like children about nice-to-haves whilst not being able to sell their way out of a wet paper bag.
The question actually is “what do the people making this decision stand to gain from adopting this fork, and at what risk?”
They’ve not articulated either the benefits to the decision makers, nor the possible downsides.
That’s why they’re going nowhere, fast.
It’s not 2013 where you’re selling your ideas to the whole network who run nodes and decide the rules. It’s 2024 where retirements and multibillion dollar businesses who use third party custody are on the line, not to mention the massive value the noderunners have in BTC.
You can’t sell to an undefined customer and these Devs have no idea who the customer is for their nonsense. They are creating products for themselves that no-one else will want.
