I don't have the level of comprehension to quote understand what you are talking about here. So I'll have to get back to you on that. So my BIP would also propose to reject (at consensus level) all txs with more than 500b/entry of Segwit data. This would effectively kill the Segwit exploit, and have no effect on monetary transactions. With plenty of room for monetary tx to dump 4x more data in Segwit if the case ever evolves to need more Segwit data.That woud also restrict Taproot and other redeem scripts, so it has to be analyzed if there is an use case it would cripple. I don't know why you think it would restrict Taproot. I have not been able to find a single tx that would go over my limit, spare spam tx's. Not many people care about BitVM. And I don't think invalidation of future, not yet implemented BIPs is a valid arguement. I'm also told my Segwit restriction would restrict upcoming Quantum resistance BIPs. Not a valid arguement again. And the Quantum fud is getting out of hand. I think in the case of Bisq, an easy work around could be done. The Bisq side of every trade could simply commit more than 5,000 SATs to every trade, which would allow them to retrieve their <5,000 SATs fee at a later time, by combining their fee and the 5,000 SATs already commited. I see what you mean now. The fake pubkeys would be part of a multisig where only a single real pubkey could spend the fake ones. Interesting. But if the fake pubkeys were spendable, wouldn't that defeat the whole idea of them?
I don't have the level of comprehension to quote understand what you are talking about here. So I'll have to get back to you on that. So my BIP would also propose to reject (at consensus level) all txs with more than 500b/entry of Segwit data. This would effectively kill the Segwit exploit, and have no effect on monetary transactions. With plenty of room for monetary tx to dump 4x more data in Segwit if the case ever evolves to need more Segwit data.That woud also restrict Taproot and other redeem scripts, so it has to be analyzed if there is an use case it would cripple. I don't know why you think it would restrict Taproot. I have not been able to find a single tx that would go over my limit, spare spam tx's. Not many people care about BitVM. And I don't think invalidation of future, not yet implemented BIPs is a valid arguement. I'm also told my Segwit restriction would restrict upcoming Quantum resistance BIPs. Not a valid arguement again. And the Quantum fud is getting out of hand. I think in the case of Bisq, an easy work around could be done. The Bisq side of every trade could simply commit more than 5,000 SATs to every trade, which would allow them to retrieve their <5,000 SATs fee at a later time, by combining their fee and the 5,000 SATs already commited. I see what you mean now. The fake pubkeys would be part of a multisig where only a single real pubkey could spend the fake ones. Interesting. But if the fake pubkeys were spendable, wouldn't that defeat the whole idea of them?

I don't have the level of comprehension to quote understand what you are talking about here. So I'll have to get back to you on that. So my BIP would also propose to reject (at consensus level) all txs with more than 500b/entry of Segwit data. This would effectively kill the Segwit exploit, and have no effect on monetary transactions. With plenty of room for monetary tx to dump 4x more data in Segwit if the case ever evolves to need more Segwit data.That woud also restrict Taproot and other redeem scripts, so it has to be analyzed if there is an use case it would cripple. I don't know why you think it would restrict Taproot. I have not been able to find a single tx that would go over my limit, spare spam tx's. Not many people care about BitVM. And I don't think invalidation of future, not yet implemented BIPs is a valid arguement. I'm also told my Segwit restriction would restrict upcoming Quantum resistance BIPs. Not a valid arguement again. And the Quantum fud is getting out of hand. I think in the case of Bisq, an easy work around could be done. The Bisq side of every trade could simply commit more than 5,000 SATs to every trade, which would allow them to retrieve their <5,000 SATs fee at a later time, by combining their fee and the 5,000 SATs already commited. I see what you mean now. The fake pubkeys would be part of a multisig where only a single real pubkey could spend the fake ones. Interesting. But if the fake pubkeys were spendable, wouldn't that defeat the whole idea of them?

I don't have the level of comprehension to quote understand what you are talking about here. So I'll have to get back to you on that. So my BIP would also propose to reject (at consensus level) all txs with more than 500b/entry of Segwit data. This would effectively kill the Segwit exploit, and have no effect on monetary transactions. With plenty of room for monetary tx to dump 4x more data in Segwit if the case ever evolves to need more Segwit data.That woud also restrict Taproot and other redeem scripts, so it has to be analyzed if there is an use case it would cripple. I don't know why you think it would restrict Taproot. I have not been able to find a single tx that would go over my limit, spare spam tx's. Not many people care about BitVM. And I don't think invalidation of future, not yet implemented BIPs is a valid arguement. I'm also told my Segwit restriction would restrict upcoming Quantum resistance BIPs. Not a valid arguement again. And the Quantum fud is getting out of hand. I think in the case of Bisq, an easy work around could be done. The Bisq side of every trade could simply commit more than 5,000 SATs to every trade, which would allow them to retrieve their <5,000 SATs fee at a later time, by combining their fee and the 5,000 SATs already commited. I see what you mean now. The fake pubkeys would be part of a multisig where only a single real pubkey could spend the fake ones. Interesting. But if the fake pubkeys were spendable, wouldn't that defeat the whole idea of them?