Also, don't be surprised if large multisigs will be discouraged in the future, and if there would be some kind of limit, to avoid spamming the chain with 1-of-3 multisigs, where you can achieve the same outcome by using a single public key with a single signature, and not even reveal the fact, that there are three keys involved.
i'm sure no one encourages something like 5 of 7 multisigs but 2 of 3 is quite standard and i can't see that ever being taken away. which makes something like bitcoin stamps pretty future proof. well thought out. unlike ordinals which are not well thought out.
Yes, it is "the developers fault", but guess who created OP_CHECKMULTISIG, and who messed up with the stack, so it consumes one more stack element, than it should. Of course, bare multisig was created by Satoshi, early developers only made it standard, but miners could always use it in their non-standard transactions, since 2009. Which means, that if you want to "fix" it, then all you can do, is to improve it in a new version. But you cannot touch the old one, which is already deployed, because you don't want to mess up with existing outputs, which use OP_CHECKMULTISIG, and exist on-chain.
that's right. imagine that OP_CHECKMULTISIG became deprecated to the extent that very few nodes would accept a transaction of that type. that's when bitcoin becomes a scam. because then people couldn't easily spend existing utxos! developers need to be careful they don't veer bitcoin into the scam territory like that by always coming up with new toys that work "better" and telling people not to use the old ones...
obviously a better solution is to implement some feature once and do it right the first time. so that it never needs to be changed. i am sure people will say "easier said than done". as though that's an excuse to not adhere to that philosophy, anyhow. back to ordinals...
