What I find most illuminating about the anti-BIP110 campaign isn't really any of the technical arguments (although those are important), but the overall social strategy.
There was a real coalition of privacy advocates (like Samourai and Wasabi developers agreeing on something!) and certain independent developers and long-time critics of Bitcoin Knots who opposed BIP110, yet they were largely overshadowed while the campaign instead wrapped itself around Saylor, Andy, Coinbase, and other institutions in the "Bitcoin Security Consortium." From a consensus building perspective, that seems like a missed opportunity or an odd own goal. I mean if I were trying to build opposition, I'd have elevated the privacy and decentralization voices, not the institutions that many Bitcoiners are already largely skeptical of.
The technical debate is one thing, ok, but at the social layer the anti-BIP110 side seemed to misunderstand how Bitcoiners actually form consensus, like they are socially retarded.
Great essay that's very relevant to Nostr.
This is all downstream from letting (zionist) big tech set the conditions of the algorithm built to extract attention + monetize outrage + turn communities into audiences ready to consume slop. This is not so much a content problem as it is an infrastructural problem. We need to start migrating toward spaces where Muslims can actually build durable online communities, control their own networks, own their identities, run their own relays, support each other directly, and have conversations that are not subservient to the algorithm.
