I'm signaling for the UASF, 110 is go. I've looked at the arguments from both sides. I find the case for 110 to be technically, architecturally and intellectually sound. The case against it was nothing but rhetoric. To be clear, I'm not calling anybody a pedo or a traitor. I don't like some of what I'm seeing. Some things have a bad look. But I'm not going to detract from anyone without real knowledge. I know some core devs who I like. Honest people can disagree. I think most likely some devs and entrepreneurs just want protocol extensibility for their own ambitions. Such is life, but Bitcoin is too important. Propose a Bip if you can justify it. You don't get a blank check. In the mean time, let's keep the network tight. Bitcoin is money. It needs to stay secure and decentralized. As a base layer, it should be as simple and stable as possible. So I'm pro ossification and simplification in general. That should be the default. Anyway, that's my call for my node. I've been building software for a very long time, I care about Bitcoin and that's my take for what it's worth to you. I don't think anybody knows how the game theory plays out. Let the blocks fall where they may. Either way, tick tock. It's another fascinating passage in Bitcoin's growth and I'm excited to see how it works out.