What's a good stopping point? Making the case for the capabilities enabled by CTV+CSFS

In a recent discussion among programmers involved in Bitcoin development, there has been a focus on the potential risks associated with enabling powerful script primitives or capabilities within the Bitcoin network. The concern revolves around increasing the risk surface in various aspects, including miner competition and the security of deployed second-layers, such as Lightning networks. It's noted that while CheckTemplateVerify (CTV) and CSFS (Covenants Script For Simplicity) are being considered for their potential to enhance Bitcoin's functionality, there remains skepticism about their ability to prevent malicious activities without introducing unintended vulnerabilities. Specifically, there is caution around CSFS's capability to pass transactions-as-messages, which could exploit another UTXO, highlighting the complexity of safely extending Bitcoin's scripting capabilities.

The conversation leans towards a preference for a gradual approach to modifying Bitcoin scripts, rather than implementing a complete overhaul with new scripting languages like BTCLisp or Simplicity. This perspective stems from the observation that newly proposed scripting mechanisms often fail to fully address the security and performance needs of second-layer solutions. There's an argument made for focusing efforts on developing mechanisms at the consensus level that could mitigate adversarial Miner Extractable Value (MEV) attacks, suggesting that this direction might offer more robust protection against potential exploits targeting the network's consensus mechanism.

Moreover, the dialogue touches upon the importance of prioritizing and thoroughly reviewing the set of fixes proposed in Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 54 (BIP54) over integrating CTV and CSFS. The reasoning behind this prioritization is attributed to the limited availability of skilled reviewers and the possibility of uncovering unfavorable interactions between different sets of changes that would require additional corrections. The suggestion is to first focus on activating fixes included in BIP54, followed by considering the activation of CTV, either alone or in combination with CSFS. This phased approach reflects a realistic strategy based on historical precedents of implementing soft forks within the Bitcoin protocol.

Finally, the communication underscores the value of community consensus and clear focus when it comes to making consensus changes to Bitcoin. The inherent challenges in reviewing and testing such changes demand significant time and attention, highlighting the need for careful consideration and effort from all involved parties in the open-source Bitcoin development community.