Bitcoin Development & Risk Assessment - The industry expresses a desire for more trust-minimized and less risky solutions than BIP 444 for financial transaction immutability [1] - The industry acknowledges the value in addressing SegWit discount and inscription-related bugs [2] - The industry is concerned about added complexity and risk associated with comprehensive forks [2] - The industry emphasizes the need for independent developer inspection and analysis of more complicated forks [2] Bitcoin Functionality & Spam Mitigation - The industry aims to minimize the rugging of useful financial functionality while addressing spam [3] - The industry wants to rug spammers, specifically those using Bitcoin for legible content [3] Fork Considerations - The industry supports simple soft forks [2] - The industry suggests a more comprehensive fork would require more time for analysis [2]

Bitcoin Network Security & Governance - Bitcoin's development can be slowed down, either constructively by core developers or less constructively by others [1] - Bitcoin's functionality as a storage service for illegal content poses a significant threat to its long-term financial viability [1] - Legal challenges will inevitably arise and be addressed, regardless of how Bitcoin's development is managed [1]

RT Nick Szabo (@NickSzabo4)That is a consequence of not incentivizing non-financial content to be in its own bucket (or on another chain). If you mix your financial functionality with arbitrary content, which poses a far wider swath of legal risks and moral objections, it is going to stop being so functional. Since Core v30 is signaling an invitation to more rather than less use OP_RETURN for non-financial content, they are also inadvertently signaling that the financial functionality of OP_RETURN is deprec ...