While true, irrelevant. The risk of a chain split is not zero. The risk of csam on the chain is also not zero. The question is which is the bigger risk. I can see arguments for both.

Let's start with the use case (agile programming) As a monetary maximalist, I want to chain split transactions, ehem, entire blocks and any transactions downstream of those blocks, that don't agree with my sexual preferences. I don't care about the collateral damage of others who just want to use bitcoin as pure money. They should know better. Did I get that right @Luke Dashjr?

Oh and let's make it temporary like ETH so that we can maintain control over updates in a controlled release cycle.

What do you think v30 does? There have been less than 150 blocks mined in 2026 above 2.2mbs. The practical results of v30 is a minuscule growth in the chain. Reckless is calling this issue an emergency and then pushing a bip that will result in a chain split. Worse is that if we go to a bip110 world the spam will not be stopped. If the spam is not stopped it will come in the form of utxo bloating p2sh transactions and large multisigs. Your node is cooked. Good by pleb network. Have fun affording 32gbs of ram for your home server.

So then creating a chain split is the solution? You guys are so susceptible to propaganda

It is relevant. Core created this problem. If they reverse their OP_RETURN policy, things will cool down. It's up to them.