Zorbak

It's strange to start the discussion by ignoring all the fork risk like splitting the network and so fourth but here's a few: -Protocol/Ledger neutrality - By moving "Standardness" filters into "Consensus" rules Bitcoin ceases to be a neutral settlement layer and starts looking like a curated platform and this sets a precedent where a 55% majority can decide that your valid transaction is "spam" simply because they dislike the use case -It doesn't actually solve the problem - As Peter Todd demonstrated these filters are easily bypassed as he successfully embedded the entire 6,000-word text of BIP 110 into a single transaction by fragmenting the data across multiple 256-byte PUSHDATA elements and 83-byte OP_RETURNs so this proves the fork doesn't stop data it only increases the transaction fee "tax" for users -Incentivizes Centralizing BlockSpace Market - Capping the public relay at 83 bytes forces high-volume data users to bypass the P2P network and instead pay large mining pools directly via private APIs to include "illegal" non-standard data which creates a private blockspace market that small home-node miners cannot see or profit from -Risk of confiscation / disruption to backwards compatibility - As Gregory Maxwell noted Bitcoin nodes have no "global state" of pre-signed transactions so if a user has a multi-year inheritance plan or a "Vault" emergency exit signed offline that uses a 500-byte script or an OP_IF branch BIP 110 welds that exit shut and since the transaction is now consensus-invalid the funds are effectively confiscated for the duration of the fork -Anti-Scaling (Kills eltoo/ln-symmetry) - BIP 110 explicitly invalidates the Taproot Annex which directly blocks the ln-symmetry upgrade which is the industry's best hope for a Lightning Network that dramatically reduces the need for constant watchtower monitoring and enables simpler multi-party channels -Creates UTXO bloat - BIP 110 incentivizes spammers to hide data inside fake addresses/UTXOs (like multisig-encoded data) and while an OP_RETURN can be ignored by a lean node, a fake UTXO must be tracked by every node forever so BIP 110 intended to "save" nodes but actually creates a more expensive permanent burden on them -Breaks Miniscript & Vaults - Miniscript is the industry standard for writing readable secure smart contracts (used for inheritance, multi-party escrow, timelocked recovery) and relies heavily on OP_IF to branch between conditions so by banning OP_IF in Tapscripts BIP 110 effectively breaks Taproot-based custody setups that represent the direction the entire industry is moving -Lobotomizes BitVM - BitVM is one of very few viable paths to trustless Layer 2 bridges and requires deep "Taproot Trees" (Merkle paths) to verify computation and a 257-byte limit caps the tree depth at roughly 7 levels (128 leaves) when BitVM protocols often require thousands of leaves to function -Loss in fees for miners - If you filter out the highest paying transactions because you don't like their content you are effectively asking miners to take a pay cut which could lower the "hash price" and as block subsidy continues to halve transaction fees become increasingly critical to security -Rushed Timeline / Governance Precedent - BIP 110 activates unconditionally by September 2026 regardless of support with early activation possible at just 55% signaling within a tiny 3-month window and this "emergency" style of governance is a radical departure from Bitcoin's traditional 90%+ consensus model, if rushed "emergency" consensus changes become normalized that governance precedent is permanent even if the technical changes expire