i don't like features, i want less storage, less bandwidth. when it comes to scaling, i don't like L2 projects where the L2 user has to download and track a whole new blockchain, defeats the whole purpose of scaling in a decentralized way. that's why i like lightning. ark sounds promising but im not gonna talk too surely about it. but as long as i can get my sats back in the worse case. and it doesn't bloat the chain with data, im fine with it. like lightning. when it comes do doing other things like dns for example, im only with that if its not putting raw data on the timechain, it can put timestamp for millions of dns events but that's about it. i believe in isolation. in theory i can make a "script" and timestamp its calls on the chain. and it would just be 32 bytes timestamp for millions/billions of calls. my problem is shitcoins puts everything on a one unified chain, all data and all money, so everyone has to download everything to verify a small thing. but i shouldn't have to download dns data ever if i dont care about it. that's why timestamps are great. and payments i think can be done on other L2 payment channels LN and ARK. for example i can put a dns for sale and say if you pay this invoice, and put its proofs on the your payment "script" call, you get this dns. i think nostr can be used for sharing call events. it can even be nostr native, nostr addresses interacting with scripts. of course it has its own race or double payment problems, but those also have really simple solutions, that im not gonna get into atm. point is. there is no bloat, everyone can download anything without everything. so if i think about these, bip110 doesn't stop any of these, making you come up with better more elegant solutions. and when it comes to "bip110 limiting things", im gonna say this: limitation is important for bitcoin. saying, "ok we can only work in this framework" is important. you can't expect using things in an hacky undefined way and expect protocol to keep supporting that use case. if you abuse peoples devices, they will kick you out and rug you. if we had all features ever without limitations, running a node would become hard, therefore network would become less decentralized, because everyone would be trusting others instead of their local node. limitation is a good thing. i think we have been having too many feature related changes, its time we start having changes that are making running a node easier and easier over time. i think bip110, is a great staring point. if we don't have the nodes, speed, privacy, features means nothing. node running being easy is important, and it should be even easier, because rn its kinda hard if you are not determined. hundreds of millions of bitcoin users, barely 100k bitcoin nodes. its not even the 1% of the users. you can copy paste what i wrote to an llm and ask it to explain, if the way i write things are confusing.