Simple in code, not simple socially. What you are suggesting is essentially a hard fork and that would require serious coordination by Core who's reputation has deteriorated. While all that is being deliberated on, assuming the BIP 110 has enough hash power for a few blocks here or there, wipeout and game theory aren't working in Core chains favor

It's not essentially a hard fork-- it's a soft fork. And it doesn't necessarily have to be done by Core. (Nor do I think their reputation is deteriorated in the eyes of serious people.)

If it's contested, if forces and chain choice and a split that cannot be brought back together without another emergency intervention. So yes, effectively it is a hard fork by history change rather then a rule change. And if not Core, who and how? I think there are some very serious and committed bitcoiners on the knots side that are interested in maintaining bitcoin as money and I don't think they will capitulate. Yourself, and youre inner circle of serious bitcoiners may not thing Cores reputation has deteriorated but the reality is 22% of the network jumped ship, price has been down huge since release, lead maintainer gone, legendary supporter likely involved with epstein, and having to pull the Core 30 release for a major bug. Doesnt look great to me

"Their reputation is not deteriorated in the eyes of serious people" What an odd thing to say about people involved with Epstein who changed Bitcoin software for Citrea and spammers.

See, the error in your thinking is that you think "hard fork" means "chain split", and "soft fork" means "no chain split".

your simple checkpoint doesnt address the older nodes on the network from re-org risk which would be a forced upgrade. checkpoints to invalidate valid chain(s) of blocks would be a hard fork

The same is true for BIP110 so by your own logic that would be a hard fork too. (Of course neither are hard forks; both are soft forks.)

its not, bip110 blocks remain compatible with exisiting nodes on the network which is why there exist the possibility of wipeout (however small). the wipeout risk wouldnt be solved without a solution like your checkpoint, which is a forced upgrade. ursf to bip110 isnt a softfork

Non-upgraded nodes just follow the longest chain, whether that’s the UASF or the URSF/checkpoint chain. They’re both soft forks. But you can believe what you want to believe.

the wipeout risk is there for non-upgraded nodes because the difficulty adjustment still exists i believe any scenario is far from certain and bip110 doesnt present any harm

You don’t understand what you’re talking about.

You’re hiding behind definitions. In the real world, a contested checkpoint forces a chain choice and locks in history, which is a split in everything but name. Calling it soft doesn’t change that.

Yeah same is true for BIP110, and that’s the point.

may be worth making an episode of bitcoin explained for bip110 so people know what theyre getting into. no bias or endorsement, just the technicals and the outcome scenarios. cc @Sjors Provoost (possibly compromised) or not. dont feed the trolls 🤷‍♂️