Your problem Franky is that you have some abstract idea of a problem and then expand that to the whole system and bash everything in your way.
back then they had buzzwords for them empty opcode, called nops, nulls.. these days for the new subclass of opcodes of segwit and then the next subclass of opcodes for taproot they buzzword names like opsuccess
LEARN THEM, learn what they do and dont do
OP_NOPs have always existed in Bitcoin and they are a good thing. They exist to allow future expansion while having their usage restricted by standard rules. Need I remind you of how OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY was activated?
anyways
the very next bytes you can put in a op_0 is op_push4 which say the next bytes after that can be 4,294,967,295 bytes(4.29GB) which are only prevented by the block limit to not actually be 4.29gb
also multisig did not use op_0 it used other operation bytes..
Wrong.
As I said witness version 0 is literally the strictest script that exists in Bitcoin. After OP_0 there can only and only be either 20 byte or 32 bytes and absolutely nothing else. If you include anything else (eg. 19 bytes) your transaction is rejected as invalid (not even non-standard, it is outright invalid).
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/b5a271334ca81a6adcb1c608d85c83621a9eae47/src/script/interpreter.cpp#L1901so it can be abused in so many ways due to its openness at the time of writing it in 2016
I don't know what SegWit was or may have been before it was activated. It is as it is right now and your statements in the previous quote chunk are in present tense not something that might have been and your bashing of SegWit is still happening today not in some distant past with all false information such as the previous quote chunk!
seems doomad and pooya have rejoined each other in the cultish narrative of merit circle jerkin and defending each other again, to prevent bitcoin scaling by not even knowing about the code or exploits that are causing the congestion that is not helping bitcoin have lean transactions or increased transaction counts
It is one thing to talk about the actual problem which is the "loose ends" in witness evaluation rules some of which introduced in version 1. Nobody has talked about them more than I did. But it is another thing to bash SegWit as a whole and use the strictest one (which is version 0) as your whole false arguments!