These are mostly policy examples. You can still make a bare multisig or a large OP_RETURN and if you find a miner willing to mine it, their block will be valid. In my statement I referred to what can be included in a valid block. I've always been a bit doubtful of policy and how it's used in bitcoin.
I'm sorry that you spent so much time with your argument about NFTs -- you make a compelling case, and it is well-written...and I agree with you -- but as far as I'm concerned, I'm only talking about sats.
When I said
But in doing so, it seems to me to sacrifice the confidence a utxo-holder has that they will be able to use Bitcoin the way they thought they could when they first bought in.
I'm not talking about buying NFTs or any shit like that. I'm referring to buying bitcoins. And I was referring to someone who bought bitcoin and held the private keys to their own utxo -- hence the term "utxo-holder".
(Now it is also the case that this may apply to the inscription, ordinal, whatever people. I don't know how prevalent key-holding is amongst them, but every one of those transactions is a utxo, which (mostly) means it has sats -- I don't care about their meta protocol thingie, but I do care about their ability to transact with their sats).
Once the softfork expires, UTXOs of all heights are once again unrestricted." (#1431372)
I'm aware of the temporary nature of the RTDS as well as the carve out to grandfather-in pre-existing utxos with locking scripts that violate BIP 110. However, none of that is really relevant as far as I'm concerned.
If I buy bitcoin today, my expectation is that I will be able to hold it and transfer it to anyone I like at any point in the future. If a soft fork is enacted next year that includes a rule that says we can no longer send to addresses on the OFAC sanction list, I would consider that a major change to how I expected to be able to use bitcoin when I bought my coins. It doesn't need to freeze my coins to be bad. It's enough that it removes an option that was available to me when I first bought bitcoin.
The same is true for the hypothetical case where I expected to be able to use a multisig and for some (unfathomable) reason we soft fork in rules that make it impossible to construct multisigs (highly unlikely, yes, but BIP 110 breaks some miniscript forms and it is not impossible that BIP 110 should it be enacted limits complicated scripts).
I'm concerned that BIP 110 targets "spam" now, but sets up the pattern for targeting any sufficiently complicated bitcoin transaction that the fad dislikes this year. I do not believe that the people who are leading the promotion of this BIP are taking this concern seriously, and it leads me to doubt that they will be content with the current proposal (not even if it is made permanent). Luke and Dathon have both acknowledged that further forks to prevent spam may be required.
tl;dr - I really could care less about the pretend toys that sit outside bitcoin like ordinals or citrea, but if those people hold utxos and want to do things with those utxos that follow block validation rules, I think we should be very, very careful about trying to prevent them from doing so.
I'll respond backwards (going up from the bottom)
These are mostly policy examples. You can still make a bare multisig or a large OP_RETURN and if you find a miner willing to mine it, their block will be valid. In my statement I referred to what can be included in a valid block. I've always been a bit doubtful of policy and how it's used in bitcoin.
I'm sorry that you spent so much time with your argument about NFTs -- you make a compelling case, and it is well-written...and I agree with you -- but as far as I'm concerned, I'm only talking about sats.
When I said
I'm not talking about buying NFTs or any shit like that. I'm referring to buying bitcoins. And I was referring to someone who bought bitcoin and held the private keys to their own utxo -- hence the term "utxo-holder".
(Now it is also the case that this may apply to the inscription, ordinal, whatever people. I don't know how prevalent key-holding is amongst them, but every one of those transactions is a utxo, which (mostly) means it has sats -- I don't care about their meta protocol thingie, but I do care about their ability to transact with their sats).
I'm aware of the temporary nature of the RTDS as well as the carve out to grandfather-in pre-existing utxos with locking scripts that violate BIP 110. However, none of that is really relevant as far as I'm concerned.
If I buy bitcoin today, my expectation is that I will be able to hold it and transfer it to anyone I like at any point in the future. If a soft fork is enacted next year that includes a rule that says we can no longer send to addresses on the OFAC sanction list, I would consider that a major change to how I expected to be able to use bitcoin when I bought my coins. It doesn't need to freeze my coins to be bad. It's enough that it removes an option that was available to me when I first bought bitcoin.
The same is true for the hypothetical case where I expected to be able to use a multisig and for some (unfathomable) reason we soft fork in rules that make it impossible to construct multisigs (highly unlikely, yes, but BIP 110 breaks some miniscript forms and it is not impossible that BIP 110 should it be enacted limits complicated scripts).
I'm concerned that BIP 110 targets "spam" now, but sets up the pattern for targeting any sufficiently complicated bitcoin transaction that the fad dislikes this year. I do not believe that the people who are leading the promotion of this BIP are taking this concern seriously, and it leads me to doubt that they will be content with the current proposal (not even if it is made permanent). Luke and Dathon have both acknowledged that further forks to prevent spam may be required.
tl;dr - I really could care less about the pretend toys that sit outside bitcoin like ordinals or citrea, but if those people hold utxos and want to do things with those utxos that follow block validation rules, I think we should be very, very careful about trying to prevent them from doing so.