Would OP_SUCCESS (OP_CAT) be spent?

The discussion revolves around the complexities and challenges associated with implementing upgrades within the Bitcoin ecosystem, particularly through soft forks. The notion of requiring an "ecosystem agreement" for these upgrades is critiqued, highlighting the impracticality of achieving consensus among all parties involved, which in some ways mirrors past scenarios where influential developers in networks similar to Ethereum Foundation or Rootstock Labs have had significant sway. These entities have historically recognized their outsized influence and receded when necessary to allow the ecosystem to evolve independently.

Furthermore, the conversation touches upon the limited future scope perceived for soft forks within the Bitcoin network, suggesting that perhaps only one more might be realistically achievable. This limitation is attributed to the high stakes of executing a soft fork, which essentially dares participants to risk creating a fork by using a transaction output (utxo) incorrectly. In this vein, OP_CAT is mentioned as a potentially viable option for such a strategic move, despite acknowledging the uncertainty surrounding its success and the explicit decision to refrain from further personal investment in this approach.

Finally, the discourse expresses skepticism regarding the possibility of reaching a harmonized consensus within the Bitcoin community on future developments. It suggests that without embracing aggressive strategies like the one proposed, the community might have to settle for less innovative solutions such as Rootstock's merge mining or BitVM bridges. This perspective underscores a resignation to the limitations of current strategies and the challenges of innovating within a decentralized ecosystem without a unified direction.