[BIP Proposal] Reduced Data Temporary Softfork

The discussion revolves around the utilization of nlocktime in Bitcoin, highlighting its intentional design for forward compatibility and its potential misuse only under deliberate misapplication, rather than through standard operational errors. This aspect underscores the built-in safeguards against unintentional harm, emphasizing the critical nature of understanding and respecting the original functionalities and protective measures inherent in Bitcoin's design.

The critique extends to a proposed change in the Bitcoin protocol that seems to overlook significant concerns previously addressed in the evolution of Bitcoin, particularly those related to softforks post Pay to Script Hash (P2SH). The proposal is criticized for not adequately considering the implications of restricting scriptpubkey sizes, a move that has been identified as potentially harmful due to its capacity to inadvertently confiscate user funds—a concern initially raised by other community members but dismissed by the proposal's proponents.

Furthermore, the proposal's disregard for established upgrade paths, such as tapscript OP_SUCCESS, is highlighted as a fundamental flaw. This mechanism was specifically designed to prevent security vulnerabilities in scripts that prematurely adopt new opcodes, ensuring a safer evolution path for Bitcoin's scripting capabilities. By neglecting this wisdom, the proposal is seen as eliminating an important safety feature without recognizing its intended purpose.

The response to the proposal within the Bitcoin development community is overwhelmingly negative, with predictions of non-activation due to these substantial issues. Should it somehow be activated, opposition would likely manifest through a fork, with the proposers facing potential legal challenges from those adversely affected. The sentiment among leading Bitcoin developers suggests a united front against adopting such changes, foreseeing a lack of support and diminished market valuation for a fork that incorporates these contentious modifications. This discourse illustrates the importance of thorough analysis and community consensus in the evolution of Bitcoin, highlighting the risks associated with overlooking established safeguards and the collective wisdom of the developer community.