Re: The Cat, BIP draft discussion.

The email addresses concerns regarding the functionality and security implications of outputs deemed unspendable within the context of Bitcoin's consensus code. The sender clarifies that outputs identified as unspendable are indeed irrevocably so, dismissing any notion that clever techniques such as steganography could alter this fact. They entertain the hypothesis that if outputs were only presumed to be unspendable but were actually spendable, it would indeed pose a significant problem. However, they caution against hastily altering consensus-critical code due to the high risk of introducing errors into an already complex system.

Further, the sender argues against the necessity of a consensus change to address what they see as a non-issue, suggesting that the potential drawbacks, including the increased likelihood of mistakes, outweigh the benefits. They advocate for a solution where implementations that prioritize certain functionalities, like stamp exclusions, should individually tailor their systems to accommodate these needs safely. This approach, they suggest, spares the broader community from the complications of a consensus change that many may find irrelevant. The underlying message is a call for cautious and deliberate modification of Bitcoin's codebase, emphasizing safety and precision over reactionary changes.

This discussion took place on the "Bitcoin Development Mailing List," indicating its relevance to developers and individuals interested in the technical aspects of Bitcoin's ongoing development and maintenance.