With another bug (privacy leak) revealed in the recent Bitcoin Core software, the claim that #Knots lacks sufficient review and #BIP110 is rushed continues to weaken. One cannot expect junior developers to simply replace long-standing senior developers—"Juniorizing" is just a management buzzword.

Even before the final showdown of the spam war, #BIP110 has already manifested its influence on the community by exposing and bankrupting more spammers, verifying instead of trusting what core developers are actually doing, running alternative bitcoin clients, slaying fake sinfluencers, home mining, renting hash rate, and more.

Black pilled persons tend to become defeatist, but the only way for #BIP110 to lose is not to play it. However, #BIP110 is—as the block size war was—only a battle in an endless ongoing war.

In retrospect, an honest reevaluation of the Taproot soft fork—considering the bugs it introduced and its current usage—would force us to downgrade our assessment of the proposal. Therefore, using that proposal as the "gold standard" for a good soft fork and as an argument against #BIP110 seems dubious, as #BIP100 is essentially the bug fix for this flawed update.

#BitMEX is spreading FUD about #BIP110 by adding a box called "Expected Fork Time" on their node statistics page. Only such ignorance may cause a temporary chain split.

Resoluteness on one side and ignorance on the other are building a stormy mixture for a hot summer. #BIP110

Would @Simon Dixon dissect bitcoin with the same thoroughness as he analyzes world affairs if it fails, or would he express any sadness as well?

Mercenaries in the bitcoin ecosystem thinking in fiat terms such as hashers, developers, etc., will sell themselves to the highest bidder or move on to other fields. Is that a good thing for #BIP110? Probably, as they are not amenable to gaslighting if the money does not add up.

As the Gregorian calendar is better aligned with the solar system, it is the superior calendar. Similarly, bitcoin is the better monetary system with #BIP110 activated to address spam. Do not reject it simply because you dislike the individuals who proposed it. In the beginning, the Gregorian calendar was rejected by the pope's enemies, but now almost all civic institutions are using it.

Bitcoin does not stay decentralized and secure by itself. Human action keeps it that way. #BIP110 cc: @Jeff Booth, @knutsvanholm

As bitcoin is described as "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" in the whitepaper, returning back to a cash system by activating #BIP110 cannot be labeled as a precedent for future restrictions. That is just another example of politically motivated doublespeak.

For miners, accepting #BIP110 is actually a perfect excuse to save themselves from the overhanging Sword of Damocles—the sword being the threat of accidentally minting the fatal OP_RETURN that could render them liable and destroy their reputation.

People rejecting #BIP110 often acknowledge that spam is retarded, but they somehow think they are not allowed to act because that would be censorship. Is it governmental indoctrination to adhere to a false principle that in the end harms oneself?

What is the "added value" if #BIP110 does not activate? Spam! Well, that is disgusting. ;-)

#BIP110 gains territory by node count, blocks found, and people discredited as spammers.

You can always remain silent, but rejecting #BIP110 at this stage reveals you as a spammer or a zealot who follows authority without thinking for yourself.

As the blocksize war, the spam war today is also fought by the people in a grassroots movement. During the former, many crypto companies were against the UASF, and many leading voices at the time did not endorse it either. So, keep up the fight. #BIP110

Low time preference means that you accept short-term price volatility for the long-term survival of bitcoin. #BIP110

Claiming that it is difficult to define spam instead of just fixing the bugs and vulnerabilities that are being exploited for spam is just another nice formulation by sinfluencers from "Ministry of Truth". #BIP110

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." from 1984 by George Orwell. To see spam on the chain and somehow know that it is bad but then not reject it because you are against censorship is just a clear example of this Orwellian Newspeak. #BIP110