rich1.0Super Testnet (npub1yx…c399s)https://nostr.now/npub1yxp7j36cfqws7yj0hkfu2mx25308u4zua6ud22zglxp98ayhh96s8c399snjumphttps://nostr.now> “Most nodes are apathetic” is an interesting reason to never activate anything. By that metric, no soft fork would ever pass. I disagree. I think you can persuade nodes to support your cause. But setting a countdown before you've done that is foolhardy and likely to get you kicked off the network. > The OP_IF restriction in BIP-110 applies specifically to Tapleaves in Taproot scripts And it is a bad idea because miniscript uses that feature in a perfectly innocent way and there is no good reason to break it. > It's temporary (one year, auto-expiry) If bip110 fans think it's okay to do the partial ban now, then the same reasons that make them think so will probably make them think it's okay to extend the ban a year from now. Conversely, if they have reasons for thinking it would be bad to continue the ban next year, then just apply those reasons right now, and don't do the ban in the first place. > The fix for affected wallets is splitting OP_IF branches into separate Tapleaves, which Taproot best practice already recommends That is not always recommended. OP_IF is in taproot in part to retain a lot of compatibility with previously written scripts and compilers, including miniscript. Moreover, there are frequent occasions when it is more efficient to use OP_IF than it is to use another tapleaf. BIP110 acts as if OP_IF is a bad thing when in fact it is a good thing. > Lightning unaffected. Multisig unaffected. It is strange to list all the things that "aren't" affected instead of addressing the things that "are" affected. Miniscript. Nunchuk. Bitvault. > Existing UTXOs [are] permanently exempt Utxos received into affected wallets after BIP110 activates (*if* it activates) are not exempt. I'd be okay with BIP110 if it just exempts those potential future utxos too.