Continuing the discussion about noinput / anyprevout

The debate over output tagging in Bitcoin to reduce fungibility and create two domains, one for user-addressable destinations and one for contracts, has sparked controversy. ZmnSCPxj opposes output tagging and suggests that Decker-Russell-Osuntokun implementations use a standard MuSig 2-of-2 bip-schnorr SegWit v1 Funding Transaction Output, confirmed on-chain. They suggest that special blockchain constructions should only be used in "bad" unilateral close cases, while cooperative cases should use simple plain bip-schnorr-signed outputs. In addition, the usefulness of NOINPUT is agreed upon, but it needs more feedback from the wider community. There is no opposition to chaperone signatures introduced in anyprevout / anyprevoutanyscript, and output tagging is strongly opposed. Finally, ZmnSCPxj is ambivalent about merging BIP-118 and bip-anyprevout, and adds that cats are cute but irrelevant to the discussion.