7. The Contrarian
REASONS TO ARGUE AGAINST OP_CAT
1) Satoshi thought of everything, and he removed it, so he must have thought of something we didn't.
In fact, Satoshi never mentioned OP_CAT at all on blog forums
2) We love the lore of the
@quantumcats team, but there is no evidence Satoshi had a pet cat
This code was meant to conCATenate - essentially, if you have thing one and thing two, it makes it so you can program thingonethingtwo
3) Now, BTC is oftentimes considered to be the most secure chain, and while OP_CAT may not directly threaten this, it will allow for functions that may increase the changes of malicious actors succeeding on BTC...
... do we really want to be like the BAYC on ETH???
4) In fact, while this is great for DEVS and will make things easier, we dont need that on BTC. Adding in OP_CAT will have very little benefit for the average person, and will probably only introduce harm (I know we think we are smarter but what about mass adoption??)
5) Other proposed uses are decentralized storage... OPEN YOUR EYES... this is bc people hate ordinal inscriptions.
Once again, we don't NEED decentralized storage.
We don't want to be like ETH and IPFS...
We can inscribe directly on SATS
6) IF you really wanted Covenant options on BTC ... CTV is way more efficient. We have advanced the tech since the time of OP_CAT.
We take our time for a reason here, but OP_CAT isn’t a good reason