no mimblewimble is not the solution to the problem

actually having hard consensus rules again that are set to, for instance: limit witness to 80 bytes is a solution

a one "for instance" of taproot.. you know the taproot promise of witness resembling a signal signature.. well enforce that promise

as for other for instances. multisig/p2sh. if needing a 15-of-15 then have 15x80 limit
instead of the lame softrule of "go ahead take 3.98mb, we dont care"

then stop having the SOFT opcode that allows new formats (non standard) to pass through as default "isvalid"
you know when consensus was softened in mid 2017

go back to hard consensus that doesnt allow soft(non standard) things through

it doesnt need to be a thing that retroactively then invalidates old tx.
set it to reject transactions and blocks that contain such transactions after block 7xx,xxx

dont have the non-standard BS[cant say the buzzword] which was added in 2017
put consensus back to hard consensus of validate everything from point X where anything after X has to meet the 80byte rule for taproot and such.

toughen consensus to be hard. because consensus was suppose to be (and was) hard years ago

where node majority from point X has to be ready to validate a new rule before a new rule/format activates.. the way it was and should have always continued being

its a simple code edit.
to stop it just remove the "isvalid" exception for certain opcodes where nodes reject transactions that are non standard
because consensus should not be allowing non standard. as thats been a security (trojan back door) since 2017

(i would love to be more technically specific to what i am hinting. but each time i mention certain things that need to be undone my posts get deleted by an over zealous and bias mod. who doesnt want me mentioning certain flaws.. but they know exactly what i am talking about)

@pooya
you quote me using one FOR INSTANCE format it would be like 80 bytes..

where by ETF then played the game you are now playing by taking that ONE INSTANCE of taproot format stuff and using that ONE previous instance but then talk about it in a different format entirely again (facepalm)

He ETF went on a whataboutism. where HE implies i must be talking about all formats being 80bytes and questioning old multisig(pre schnorr)

i respond to him by saying no.. by using the 15*80 for P2sh

which you then chime in with a whataboutism of p2WSH (facepalm)

i was not implying a 80byte rule for all.. i was just not wanting to list every byte count for every opcode varient and tx format

 i was not suggesting a flat amount for all (<-emphasis)
read the posts above in response to ETFbitcoin where i said about p2sh
where i said 15*80
(its not a schnorr thing)
which is MORE then enough for old multisig

then read the post below the horizontal rule that got deleted (hmm no surprise)
and i want to pre warn you because you already snipped it .. the "and such" is that other rules apply about byte counts for other formats

the main implication i did make is that NO one deserves 3.9mb for 1 tx.. which i also suggested a rule to prevent(in previous post)

thie thing is if i say too much or list too many rules i get a certain group moderating my posts out of existance and i get told im a dictator and so i have to limit explaining every rule for every format.. so o only gave a one "for instance".

now im reposting the post that got deleted due to social drama bias moderator and his fans