Nah.

What's the split, do you think, between BIP-110ers who say "Wow, I was eggregioisly misled about the way this would unfold" and those who will just make up a new conspiracy about why they failed?

I am not a new bitcoiner. - I can acknowledge that BIP110 is unfortunate. - I am certain that core needs a disciplinary response to an unforgivable way of handling the clearly controversial datacarriersize change. - Running older version of core is not sustainable in the long run and implicitly proves distrust to the core anyway - Considering BIP110 from a code standpoint - and not from the unfortunate "forced" nature of the softfork proposal - I dont recognize, (from a technical point of view) how BIP110 makes bitcoin WORSE money. - I do however recognize how 100kb datacarriersize makes bitcoin worse money - I dont care about programmable money enough that I would in any way jeopardize bitcoin as borinh actual money. So - with no ad hominem attacks at all - and with a constructive attitude - I can acknowledge that it's a SUPER tough debate with good arguments on both sides. How do I neglect the non-negotiable fact that 1. I have built distrust to Core and thus 2. need to run SOMETHING else 3. I technically dont disagree with knots + bip110 4. Disagree with forcing a minority softfork because its dangerous to the credibility of the bitcoin experiment Open to suggestions 🙏

The most sensical response in this entire thread and one of the best arguments in the entire Core vs Knots debate I have heard. 👊