Good morning Mike,

Hard NAK.

The responses to the original posting already pointed out important problems with this:

* Encourages address reuse, hurting fungibility and privacy.
* Prevents pruning, since access to previous blocks must always be available in order to validate.
* Optimized implementation requires creating yet another index to previous block data, increasing requirements on fullnodes.
* Requires SCRIPT to be re-evaluated on transactions arriving in  newblocks, to protect against reorgs of the chaintip, and in particular `OP_PUBREF` references to near the chaintip.

None of these issues have been addressed in your current proposal.
The proposal looks at clients only, without considering what validators have to implement in order to validate new blocks with this opcode.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj