Doing soft-fork means your node might say the tx is valid when in reality it’s not and will get reorged (that property is not good no matter how you look at it). The reality is that all coins will hard-fork from time to time, even bitcoin will when it will need to become quantum secure.
In nitx each address you create can be spammed and you can’t do anything to prevent that. Full wallet control means that other people can’t put money in your wallet unless you approve, so if the chain supports nitx then you can’t have full wallet control.
there are some clear advantages for future use, it’s important not to ignore that. Most people have no clue how this tech works and would complain when they would send to wrong address or get spammed → the tech needs to be designed so that such mistakes are not possible or at least to minimize the probability of them happening
that’s true, that’s one of the advantages of nitx. Another example is sending to your own cold wallet (although the protocol doesn’t require for cold-wallet to be online on grin, the wallet implementations don’t yet allow you to pre-generate some data which would make it possible to send to cold-wallet without it being online).
It’s important to note that vast majority of people don’t understand the difference between itx/nitx, possible attacks on each etc, so their input is mostly only valuable in terms of UX (which i agree is important). But the fact that knowledgeable people disagree on whether only nitx or only itx is preferred means that nitx is not clearly better than itx (and vice-versa).
exactly, that’s why i don’t understand how you can be so sure that nitx are better than itx when both have some big pros and cons. Another good source of education on itx vs nitx can be found here
it’s true, but if you prove that rangeproof implementation works (paper + code) then you could verify supply in grin, so it’s not that bad imo, but certainly not as good as if amounts are visible.