I watched this, but he didnāt say much about the risks of OP_CAT. His reasons to oppose were hand-wavey, IMO. If he has a specific risk in mind, Iād like to hear it.
Discussion
He didn't say which risk specifically but I remember he said it would add a lot of complexity making it hard to prevent unexpected behaviors later. It was enough for me. I'm all for KISS.
As a general principle, keeping it simple is a good one. Another good general principle is optionality. In this case theyāre in tension.
Yes, OP_CAT opens the design spaceāas did SegWit and Taproot to an even greater degree. Having more programmability does mean that some people may use it in ways we donāt like. The question is what harm can they do by it?
To me, itās crucial that we keep the cost of running a node down. More validating nodes makes a stronger, decentralized network.
Itās also crucial that we keep mining decentralized. Having participatory mining and node operation are both important.
So if OP_CAT would lead to miner centralization, or substantially increase the cost of running a node, those would be compelling reasons to oppose it, IMO. I havenāt heard anyone make this argument though.
The argument Iāve heard so far is as you say āitās harder to predict what can be done with itā. Yes, and also that affords creativity in the face of our adversaries.
I see one clear risk: it will enable Drivechains. My stance is the same as before: anything that adds unnecessary complexity and unnecessary risks is a No for me. Bitcoin is not a silly project for me. Bitcoin is very important to me, its beneficial to my familyās future. Im not gonna play with it, just so some retard can make more shitcoins.
I was oppose to #CTV in the past. But I didnāt understand it. Im not oppose to it anymore. I see how adding it will be beneficial to lightning and scaling of #Bitcoin.