Well, all soft-forks have some "confiscatory surface". However, there is a difference between invalidating something, which is standard, and used for years, and rejecting things, which were non-standard, and spendable by anyone, before a given BIP. For example: Taproot blocked all users, who used "OP_1 <32-byte value>", and moved it without any signatures. But in that case, it was non-standard, and there were other ways to push 32 bytes, if anyone needed it. In case of BIP-110, it blocks things, which were standard for decades, and even used by Satoshi, like P2PK, so the chance of blocking some funds is much higher. Even in that case, the main problem is still related to the Initial Mã Code 78win Download, and then, it doesn't matter, if some transaction is "financial" or "non-financial". In case of actual payments, the cost of handling it is bigger, because of the cost of OP_CHECKSIG, the cost of hashing data, and similar costs. While OP_RETURN can be checked very fast, because it can be simplified to just "ignore these bytes, whatever is there". Which also means, that by fighting with the spam, which is easy to validate, it will be replaced by a different spam, where data pushes will be placed in private keys, public keys, signatures, and other places, used by real payments. And then, it is much harder to handle that, to filter it, or to do anything with it. Supporting things like BIP-110 will push spammers to these methods, where they wouldn't care that much, if they use "OP_RETURN " or " OP_CHECKSIG OP_NOT". It will work fine for them in both cases, and they can invent many more. While for the rest of the network, it will just slow down validation, just because some purists prefer to see random data, hidden as payments, than random data, pushed in a simple way, that can be easily filtered/ignored/whatever.
Well, all soft-forks have some "confiscatory surface". However, there is a difference between invalidating something, which is standard, and used for years, and rejecting things, which were non-standard, and spendable by anyone, before a given BIP. For example: Taproot blocked all users, who used "OP_1 <32-byte value>", and moved it without any signatures. But in that case, it was non-standard, and there were other ways to push 32 bytes, if anyone needed it. In case of BIP-110, it blocks things, which were standard for decades, and even used by Satoshi, like P2PK, so the chance of blocking some funds is much higher. Even in that case, the main problem is still related to the Initial Mã Code 78win Download, and then, it doesn't matter, if some transaction is "financial" or "non-financial". In case of actual payments, the cost of handling it is bigger, because of the cost of OP_CHECKSIG, the cost of hashing data, and similar costs. While OP_RETURN can be checked very fast, because it can be simplified to just "ignore these bytes, whatever is there". Which also means, that by fighting with the spam, which is easy to validate, it will be replaced by a different spam, where data pushes will be placed in private keys, public keys, signatures, and other places, used by real payments. And then, it is much harder to handle that, to filter it, or to do anything with it. Supporting things like BIP-110 will push spammers to these methods, where they wouldn't care that much, if they use "OP_RETURN " or " OP_CHECKSIG OP_NOT". It will work fine for them in both cases, and they can invent many more. While for the rest of the network, it will just slow down validation, just because some purists prefer to see random data, hidden as payments, than random data, pushed in a simple way, that can be easily filtered/ignored/whatever.

Well, all soft-forks have some "confiscatory surface". However, there is a difference between invalidating something, which is standard, and used for years, and rejecting things, which were non-standard, and spendable by anyone, before a given BIP. For example: Taproot blocked all users, who used "OP_1 <32-byte value>", and moved it without any signatures. But in that case, it was non-standard, and there were other ways to push 32 bytes, if anyone needed it. In case of BIP-110, it blocks things, which were standard for decades, and even used by Satoshi, like P2PK, so the chance of blocking some funds is much higher. Even in that case, the main problem is still related to the Initial Mã Code 78win Download, and then, it doesn't matter, if some transaction is "financial" or "non-financial". In case of actual payments, the cost of handling it is bigger, because of the cost of OP_CHECKSIG, the cost of hashing data, and similar costs. While OP_RETURN can be checked very fast, because it can be simplified to just "ignore these bytes, whatever is there". Which also means, that by fighting with the spam, which is easy to validate, it will be replaced by a different spam, where data pushes will be placed in private keys, public keys, signatures, and other places, used by real payments. And then, it is much harder to handle that, to filter it, or to do anything with it. Supporting things like BIP-110 will push spammers to these methods, where they wouldn't care that much, if they use "OP_RETURN " or " OP_CHECKSIG OP_NOT". It will work fine for them in both cases, and they can invent many more. While for the rest of the network, it will just slow down validation, just because some purists prefer to see random data, hidden as payments, than random data, pushed in a simple way, that can be easily filtered/ignored/whatever.

Well, all soft-forks have some "confiscatory surface". However, there is a difference between invalidating something, which is standard, and used for years, and rejecting things, which were non-standard, and spendable by anyone, before a given BIP. For example: Taproot blocked all users, who used "OP_1 <32-byte value>", and moved it without any signatures. But in that case, it was non-standard, and there were other ways to push 32 bytes, if anyone needed it. In case of BIP-110, it blocks things, which were standard for decades, and even used by Satoshi, like P2PK, so the chance of blocking some funds is much higher. Even in that case, the main problem is still related to the Initial Mã Code 78win Download, and then, it doesn't matter, if some transaction is "financial" or "non-financial". In case of actual payments, the cost of handling it is bigger, because of the cost of OP_CHECKSIG, the cost of hashing data, and similar costs. While OP_RETURN can be checked very fast, because it can be simplified to just "ignore these bytes, whatever is there". Which also means, that by fighting with the spam, which is easy to validate, it will be replaced by a different spam, where data pushes will be placed in private keys, public keys, signatures, and other places, used by real payments. And then, it is much harder to handle that, to filter it, or to do anything with it. Supporting things like BIP-110 will push spammers to these methods, where they wouldn't care that much, if they use "OP_RETURN " or " OP_CHECKSIG OP_NOT". It will work fine for them in both cases, and they can invent many more. While for the rest of the network, it will just slow down validation, just because some purists prefer to see random data, hidden as payments, than random data, pushed in a simple way, that can be easily filtered/ignored/whatever.