I think the nunchuk devs did a pretty good job of explaining what the policy does, as you can see from the screenshot in my OP. It's not too complex.

Where are you getting that number?

A wallet dev absolutely *can* write a custom wallet that implements the same policy using tapleaves. But then he loses the interoperability that is a huge selling point of Miniscript. Custom tapleaf wallets cannot easily be exported and imported into hardware wallets and Bitcoin Core. Miniscript wallets can be. Plus, for some policies, using tapleaves is less efficient than using OP_IF: https://x.com/salvatoshi/status/1989270625454584132

Consider changing the BIP instead of demanding that innocent users change their wallets in ways they may not know how to do and which would often make them worse.

Sure, "I" can do it in a BIP110 compliant way. But many users do not know how to do that. If they are using this sample script, or potentially a customized variant that suits their needs, just get their money frozen, for no good reason. Maybe change the BIP to actually target the problem instead of demanding that other innocent people change their wallets and make them worse.

I believe the upcoming version of Knots has bip110 support, but isn't done with peer review yet. I suspect Ocean's stratum v1 pool will start signaling for bip110 shortly after that software is released.

> BIP110 is standardness policy — not consensus. Your transaction exists. It just doesn’t get relayed by nodes that reject spam. This is basic Bitcoin literacy.

It changes consensus, not standardness policy. Speaking of basic literacy, have you read the bip?


bips.dev/110

I outline my reasons for opposing it in this document:

https://github.com/supertestnet/ursf-110

Yes, I don't think any prior signaling period had more than 4 pro110 blocks

The nice thing about building your own templates is, you get to choose whether you signal for bip110 or against it. Notably, Ocean runs a traditional stratum v1 pool alongside their Datum pool, and their traditional pool has not yet signaled for bip110. Only some individual hashers in their Datum pool have done so, and a tiny minority or them. Most Ocean miners seem to oppose bip110 (rightly, imo).