The 0-conf risk is negligeable completely LOW RISK, as the attackers have no incentive to do it for low value trxs, and it is in no one's authority to restrict such flexibility to merchants who accept the risk for customer convenience. Why for instance sybil attack never happened and it is a likely risk suddenly? This is about FLEXIBILITY on-chain, always independent from any L2. LN may become outdated but Bitcoin must stay resilient, IMMUTABLE and flexible. Others must addapt to Bitcoin, that should stay STABLE with few to minimum but fixing changes. This is NOT A BUG. BITCOIN IS FINE. There is currently a "Bitcoin Hub" that is out of control and keeps pushing non-bug fixing CHANGES to Bitcoin like in this proposal 24.0. Bitcoin Devs should not even, due to obvious bias, be involved AT ALL in PROMOTING non-bug fixing CHANGES. DOING NO CHANGE WHATSOEVER to Bitccoin and continue to allow 0-conf is good for Bitcoin and Satoshi as I understood also considered such 'risk' as very low. So why the proposal for a CHANGE at all present in this useless CHANGE proposal 24.0 on that (pardon my French skills) that restricts merchants to continue having a seamless on-chain/LN option for their users only great for more hyperbitcoinization with minimum to NO proven risk, to which acceotcance should be SOLELY at the acceptance criteria of the users?