Softfork before GTA VI?

The discussion on the potential for future soft-forks in Bitcoin reveals a nuanced perspective on development and community consensus. Initially, elements like OP_CAT were highly controversial and seemed unlikely to gain traction. However, with the introduction of BIP-347, perceptions shifted somewhat, illustrating that even contentious features could be considered if there is enough push from parts of the community. This scenario underscores the ongoing debate between maintaining the current system without changes and the push to introduce new features despite potential repercussions.

The example of sidechains further illustrates these complexities. Despite the lack of support for BIP 300, indicating a resistance to decentralized sidechains primarily due to concerns like Miner Extractable Value, developers might still pursue alternative routes. This could lead to the emergence of centralized sidechains as a workaround to the systemic constraints. Such developments suggest that regardless of formal adoption of new technologies or standards, individuals may attempt to exploit existing tools to create new functionalities.

This dynamic reflects broader trends in technology where limitations in a system often drive innovation through unofficial or unintended methods. Similar to how C++ programmers have used templates and metaprogramming to extend the language's capabilities beyond its original scope, Bitcoin developers might leverage existing codebases and features to sidestep formal processes and implement changes. This approach, while innovative, can lead to complexities and unexpected outcomes in the ecosystem, mirroring the historical evolution of programming languages where necessity and creativity overcome formal limitations.