It's all unknown atm- the biggest danger to Bitcoin imo is the huge mining firms that went public. The core woke takeover is easy enough to sort out, despite current numbers, but heavily centralised mining isn't.

There is already a list of blocked utxos on Bitcoin which shouldn't be the case for permissionless. We need Datum v2 to increase decentralisation

Well at least we will have fought the fight.

Essentially, your argument boils down to this: "There isn't enough support, therefore it won't happen, therefore supporting it is irrational." That shifts the discussion from technical merit to social conformity. Your underlying message feels less like: "Here's why BIP-110 is technically incorrect." and more like: "The majority won't follow you, therefore you should stop." That's very close to herd-morality thinking because truth becomes subordinate to social consensus. You're positioning yourself as the spokesperson for "reality" itself: "I don't know how you can be so stupid as not to see reality" You frame reality as: Majority = legitimacy Minority = delusion Success = correctness Failure = proof of being wrong You view disagreement as evidence of irrationality rather than a difference in analysis. This is a common social dominance tactic. You focus on anticipating where the crowd will be rather than evaluating the proposal itself. Your arguments are heavily centered on social adoption, credibility, majority support, and conformity to perceived reality. Even if BIP-110 ultimately fails, that doesn't automatically mean the attempt was irrational, dishonest, or technically unsound. Movements fail all the time for political reasons.

Without the majority of the nodes you obtain a chain split, if you think your is a great idea, you have to convince node operators. In bitcoin force users, without the 51% of the majority doesn't work.

I'm a knots node runner

You miss my point

My point: Argument: "Most people won't adopt it, therefore don't support it." Why should the anticipated opinion of the majority determine my judgment? If you believe BIP-110 is beneficial for Bitcoin, then its current popularity is a separate question from its merit. Allowing your convictions to be determined by expected social acceptance is precisely how herd morality operates. Yes, the numbers are against us. So what? If we believe this is the right direction, we should fight for it and discover whether the resistance can be overcome. The possibility of failure is not itself an argument against action. At some point: - Bitcoin itself was a tiny minority. - The blocksize wars began with minorities on both sides. - Every major philosophical, political, religious, or scientific shift started with people who lacked majority support. If the standard is: "Do not pursue anything unless a majority already supports it," then no new majority can ever emerge. The argument becomes circular: You need majority support before you may seek majority support. Support it because you judge it to be right, not because you expect it to win.

Have you realized that you speak like a politician? Accept reality.

Accept the truth?

My opposition *is* based on technical merits. OP_IF is way too fundamental even in a stack based language like Script. Removing that cripples the language and people will lose money because of that.

Write as human, not AI slop then

Liar