rich1.0punspotter (npub1k8…f2dtx)https://yabu.me/npub1k840p2d8kapylsc58lnvedfwc072nrv67h3vprsw7qseclxjah3qgf2dtxnjumphttps://yabu.mePosts like this are why it's hard to take BIP110 supporters seriously. On knotslies.com: Of course it's not neutral, but it documents the technical case for why the BIP cannot accomplish what it claims. On persona: Have you been on X lately? There are accounts with "BIP110" in their profile and "rug the spammers" in their bio spouting exactly this kind of nonsense. Most are plebs, some are people I used to respect. Not all are bots, but many are. So when you say "we do not," you're ignoring a vocal contingent that clearly does. On benefits: It still would be trivial to put arbitrary data in the chain. Block size and IBD stay the same so no benefit to node runners there. You're more likely to push spam into UTXO pollution, which is worse for node operators than OP_RETURN data that can be pruned. The opcode and tapscript restrictions hurt L2 development. And if Bitcoin is going to be money for everyone, L2s are how we get there. "Virtually no benefit" is being generous. On chain split/forking off: Soft fork doesn't save you. There are three scenarios: 1) Majority mining support, smooth activation. This is your SegWit analogy but seems highly unlikely. 2) Split mining support, chain split. BIP110 has no replay protection. This creates a major mess. The 55% activation threshold and fixed activation date make this scenario possible in the unlikely event that enough miners are signaling and actually follow through. And all it takes is one non-compliant block within the year that BIP110 is active to set this off. Virtually guaranteed to happen if this scenario plays out. 3) Virtually no mining support. Enforcing nodes quietly fork themselves off the main chain while thinking they're still on Bitcoin. This is the most likely outcome. Last point: If BIP110ers were serious, they wouldn't propose a temporary soft fork with an unprecedentedly low activation threshold. If this were actually a good solution, you wouldn't see so many normal Bitcoiners arguing it doesn't make Bitcoin better money. You would be able to achieve rough consensus socially and on chain. The arguments about Core politics and tribalism are separate from whether BIP110 has enough merit to justify the risks. Agree: your node, your rules. I just wouldn't want to be responsible for misleading people and losing credibility.