Would OP_SUCCESS (OP_CAT) be spent?

The discussion raises significant points regarding the intricacies and potential implications of unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs) within blockchain technology. It presents a query into the nature of UTXOs that remain unspent, proposing that such occurrences might reveal valuable insights. The question implies that analyzing why certain UTXOs are never spent could lead to a deeper understanding of user behavior or systemic issues within the blockchain network.

Furthermore, the conversation delves into the practices of censorship applied by entities like Mara towards specific opcodes, such as OP_SUCCESS, which contrasts with their approach to other non-consensus rules. This discrepancy suggests a selective enforcement or consideration by Mara, raising questions about the criteria or motivations behind such decisions. The focus on Mara's selective censorship reveals broader concerns regarding how modifications and updates to blockchain protocols are managed, particularly those that do not align with consensus rules.

Lastly, the dialogue touches upon the broader issue of apathy, especially from miners, towards soft-forks in the blockchain community. This apathy is identified as a critical barrier to the implementation of soft-forks, indicating a lack of engagement or interest from key stakeholders in the advancement or refinement of blockchain protocols. The mention of inconvenience to authors hints at the challenges faced by contributors in advocating for protocol improvements amidst this prevailing indifference.

Overall, these discussions encapsulate current debates and challenges within the blockchain community, highlighting the complexities of protocol development, governance, and stakeholder engagement in advancing blockchain technology.