"Recursive covenant" with CTV and CSFS

The discussion revolves around the complexity and implications of making modifications to Bitcoin's script, particularly focusing on what constitutes a "narrowly scoped change." It is pointed out that tapscript, which might be considered a minor adjustment by some, actually led to a significant alteration in the way OP_IF/OP_ELSE operations are executed. This was primarily due to the removal of the limit on script size and opcodes, highlighting the unforeseen complexities that can arise from seemingly straightforward changes. The modification was necessary to prevent potential quadratic execution time increases with the length of the script, as detailed in the GitHub pull request.

Furthermore, the message critiques the perspective of viewing the current interpreter code with undue reverence, as if it were an untouchable relic left by far wiser predecessors whose understanding of the system's safe modification is beyond current comprehension. This attitude is challenged as not being productive for the evolution of Bitcoin's scripting capabilities. The overall tone suggests a need for a balanced approach towards modifying Bitcoin's code - one that recognizes the intricacies involved in what might initially appear as simple changes, while also not being overly cautious to the point of hindering progress.