Would OP_SUCCESS (OP_CAT) be spent?

The email raises concerns about the potential consequences of using upgrade hooks in blockchain protocols in a way that could undermine the current understanding and agreements among miners. It specifically critiques the idea of incentivizing miners to deviate from established norms, particularly regarding the respect for upgrade hooks, by creating conditions where ignoring certain scripts becomes financially attractive. This approach is highlighted as problematic because it relies on the assumption that miners will act against their standard practice without considering the broader implications for protocol governance and the deployment of soft forks.

The sender argues that such strategies not only disrespect the implicit agreements within the mining community but also risk complicating the process of implementing soft forks by introducing financial incentives to ignore upgrade mechanisms. This, in turn, could lead to a less cooperative and more fragmented system where protocol improvements become more challenging to introduce and gain consensus on. The email emphasizes the need for finding more constructive and community-oriented methods to propose and achieve changes in the protocol, suggesting that fostering collaboration and mutual respect among stakeholders is a better path toward innovation and improvement.

In essence, the message calls for a reconsideration of tactics when pushing for protocol enhancements, advocating for approaches that strengthen rather than weaken the collaborative framework that underpins blockchain ecosystems. The sender urges the recipient to pursue strategies that align with the collective interests of the community and preserve the integrity of the upgrade process, thereby ensuring a more sustainable and inclusive development environment for future protocol upgrades.