So Core supporters and anti-spam anti-BIP-110 are the two sides of a controled fight? Yea, that doesn't really seem plausible. Core overshot by removing datacarriersize even as an option as it previously existed, but ultimately was reacting to miner centralization causing miners to process out of band transactions for a fee because they could (due to centralization). More transactions going out of band was worse than the impact of spam (particularly prunable spam). They went way further than necessary, but the direction looks soundly rooted in the situation. 110 overshoots in an attempt to lock things down. So much so that there is next to no support from merchant nodes (armies of start9 installs not meaning much of anything). Near term, practically neither of these actually changes much. 110 fails because it's entirely foolishly designed, while Core's move changes relatively little because honestly Librerelay had already solved the matter of out of out of band transactions. Core just enabled more visibility of likely blocks to people who run Core. It does, however, drive social division, and props up the likelihood of multiple implementations, which can in turn drive ossification. I'm generally for implementations for user choice, though ossification would be a decidedly bad thing for a network that still very much needs to grow in layers. There's no reason anyone should be aiming to accept Bitcoin® by Chaincode, but there's also no reason to reject it by splintering any ability to upgrade (especially through opposition that 'just wants Bitcoin how it used to be.'). In any case seeing the breakdown of nodes and miners it does look like Bitcoin's immune system is working as intended, and not being dragged into this nonsense. Tweet and Note storms notwithstanding.