Denying people the ability to use their bitcoin stored in locking scripts that others have decided are not ok anymore is against that ethos but part of bip110

If you sent bitcoin to your own miniscript to do advanced security, bip 110 declares your coins to be spam and not allowed to move for a year. What about not blocking large UTXOs or something more based in economics?

https://primal.net/e/nevent1qqspxgc6unxajuj2ww4kqhn8pya8t… exactly: should consensus carve out space for arbitrary data? if yes, how much? what node implementation you run is arbitrary data 🤣 this issue was always going to be arbitrated by protocol consensus

I think it would be safer and less contentious to partition space 90/10 instead of 100/0 with collateral damage

You misunderstand. Bip110 disables advanced bitcoin key security techniques because they aren’t common and spammers can use similar constructs…but throwing the baby out with the bath water is unwise and denying users the ability to move economically relevant amounts of funds is also unwise

Totally agree. Which is why bip110 is a non-starter. You can’t deny people the right to spend their bitcoin. Imagine if your life savings was trapped because you were a cutting edge bitcoin user…

lol, and you think your opinion matters when you can’t even understand the topic?

But only because you don’t understand op codes