> First is that CTV is relatively way more mature. Been around for a while and hasn't changed much since. So it can be adopted fast. TXHASH still has quite some room for bike-shedding.

This seems like a pretty bad reason to decide on a specific soft fork that we’re committing to for decades, at least when the second option isn’t like crazy complicated and would require a five years of work to “finish”.

> While TXHASH is way more flexible it's also an order of magnitude more complex, mostly code-wise. Needs quite some caching etc, so the code is far from trivial.

Honestly this doesn’t seem that complex? Some tx hash caching already exists so adding a few more cache entries seems…. Incredibly doable?

Honestly these seem like incredibly weak reasons (not saying they’re not the reason, just that if they are, we should choose a different path).