tiagocs, pooya87, I think it's important that BIP322 work with arbitrary scripts, for the reasons that gmax has stated.
I never disagreed with that, in fact that's the whole point of the new BIP.
But I also agree that BIP322 is written currently to require very heavy machinery
The part I always had an issue with was that the BIP was tightly coupled with bitcoin core and was treating message signatures as transactions instead of just focusing on scripts. However the BIP was changed some time ago after we discussed it here.
I wonder if you would support a version of BIP322 which:
A good BIP for message signing would be a BIP that focuses on answering this question: How does other implementations of bitcoin sign/verify messages with our proposal. For example how should Electrum implement BIP322 without needing to add new libraries (dependencies)?