The way you think is utterly confounding to me. If you kill your enemy in war, but you're forever bound to a wheelchair afterward, would you say you won the war? Technically, yes. But the cost is so much, one might say, you lost something more valuable. Also, by cutting off the second paragraph of my note, you betray how you are trying to misconstrue what I've said. In the U.S. Civil War, there used to be a confederation of states that had their own rights. When half of those states had a war with the other half, the result was the confederation of states no longer existed. It was a solidified union that was one entity instead of a bunch of states federated together. together. The Federation is what gave these United States their identity and differentiation from the rest of the world, which is why they were so exceptional. While the state still existed after the war, they were never the same. This is my analogy for the blocksize war in Bitcoin. You may choose not to believe that or think somehow Bitcoin is in a better state than it was prior to the SegWit activation. That's your prerogative. I think that BIP110 treats the symptoms of the problem and not the root cause. In my estimation, Bitcoin needs three separate things: 1. A defined specification for consensus. 2. A modular code base to allow different relay policies, and gossip networks, while still adhering to the same consensus spec. 3. The removal of the witness discount and possibly a refactoring of the weight unit system of blocksize measurement.