Not clear that flexibility is a good thing.
Is there a reason why people are pushing CTV currently over TXHASH? It seems like the second is strictly more flexible and I haven’t seen a reason why we should prefer not-that. Maybe nostr:nprofile1qqs2nep2pjnwfvfqszytdzj06eq8fqd3yps0j9dqlm95ezr524lrwjgpzfmhxue69uhk7enxvd5xz6tw9ec82cspr3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmqvgfg4m ?
Discussion
In the abstract, sure. But specifically in this case? The whole point of CTV was it being “not recursive”, but with CSFS it kinda is, and more importantly no one seems to actually want to avoid recursion (and now it’s not even in the BIP).
So? CTV is still objectively a lot simpler.
Forks in general have substantial cost by their nature. If we’re gonna do one to add features for these types of applications, it seems worth doing one to add Features for these types of applications. Just because one is a restricted version of another isn’t a strong argument to prefer it (unless the other is unreviewably or unusably complicated, neither of which applies here)