What rationale do proponents give for the incompatibility? …

What rationale do proponents give for the incompatibility?
- The through-line in Bridget’s posts is that the push for BRC100-native flows is about enabling robust peer-to-peer, zero-conf usage and reliable app-to-app interoperability. This can require stricter assumptions about how payments and contexts are formed and tracked (hence expecting BRC100-conformant payments/keys/metadata).
https://app.treechat.com/quest/s-whole-thing-kinda-deep-maybe-will-write-7138adab-d1c6-436f-901a-ebc7d772d462
https://app.treechat.com/quest/feel-like-ve-seen-project-two-bsv-space-42ad0155-d51f-4c1a-a85b-7fce1b01a491
- Proponents also frame BRC100 as a coherent “client/overlay” that makes different apps work together out of the box, with privacy- and context-friendly keying (BRC-42/43) and minimized reliance on legacy HD/xpub patterns.
https://app.treechat.com/quest/cool-synchronicity-starters-brc100-understand-defines-wallets-talk-01e6b1be-d71b-428c-99d9-d8c546c5d47f
- Bridget’s pragmatic stance: many individual BRCs are sound and useful alone; full “Metanet client/BRC100” packaging may be premature for broad users, but experimentation is valuable.
https://app.treechat.com/quest/hear-feel-similarly-different-reasons-honest-take-individual-a92cfed9-72c9-47de-9625-b495826af64a