Would OP_SUCCESS (OP_CAT) be spent?

The email discusses the author's strong interest in developing a trustless bridge leveraging OP_CAT, highlighting its potential to enable features like vaults, shielded CSV, and bridges to scalable Layer 2 solutions (L2s). The author emphasizes that such innovations are not only desirable but also technically feasible, questioning the importance of personal interest versus broader community demand or acceptance. They argue that the true test of a proposal's attractiveness lies in the willingness of its proponents to advocate strongly for it, even to the point of pressuring miners to reject invalid transactions. This approach suggests that aggressive advocacy might be more effective than protracted debates with those who may not have a direct stake in the outcomes.

Furthermore, the discussion reflects on the challenges of reaching consensus within the cryptocurrency community, especially against critics who can dismiss new ideas without substantive engagement. The mention of "NACK" and "Shitcoiner" indicates specific dismissals encountered within these technical debates. Despite the passionate argument for pushing forward with the trustless bridge concept, the author acknowledges the complexities of interacting with the broader internet community, which can often be unpredictable or hostile. This realization leads to a pragmatic conclusion that relying on multi-signature (multisig) federations might be a simpler and more reliable path forward, despite the initial enthusiasm for a more decentralized solution.