I interpret BIP110 as the node runner response to what has been perceived as an unreasonable change by core, i.e. pushing forward with uncapping OP_RETURN in the face of a lot of opposition. That's it.

#Bitcoin is money, not a market for data storage. #Bitcoin will only succeed if it‘s absolutely scarce and it‘s absolutely immutable (temper free). Meaning, it can’t be changed for personal gain. Now, Core Devs tempered with it for personal gain…#BIP110 reverses the technical damage. Once that’s done, it’ll take a looong time to rebuild the trust in #Bitcoin‘s panacea status. And then we can go back to focusing on adoption and the revolution.

All of the incentives for uncapping OP_RETURN have to do with making Bitcoin more like ethereum. The developers with privileges to make merges in the core repository are a select few individuals who are fallable. Believing they always know best or will choose the best path is foolish. This was a reckless change that has introduced far more problems than it solves.

I personally run Satoshi:29.3.0/Knots:20260210+bip110-v0.4.1/UASF-BIP110:0.4 so no need to be convinced

Storing data does not effect it's use as money or a store of value. I personally like the idea of using a decentralized block chain to record political voting to avoid fraud

110 is not reversing...

Changing #Bitcoin‘s properties away from money degrades its immutability and hence use case. Btw, you can use nostr for freedom of speech. Together #nostr and #bitcoin are all the tools we need for freedom of speech (including voting), money and a market place.

The properties aren't being changed. Dick butt images do not effect my transactions.

Amount of data is a property, by definition. Perception is key….having a small group of idiots unilaterally change the code was a huge blow to #Bitcoin‘s panacea status. It lost its credibility as being secure, immutable. What’s next, these idiots changing the 21 million limit? The node network is too small and weaker than people expected. Hopefully #Bip110 will prove the opposite. At the tactical level, increasing the OP_Return size poses many risks, legal exposure, malware exposure, cost to run a node, etc Plus, while not yet fatal, these changes, Segwit, OP_Return etc, slowly weaken the immune system of #Bitcoin, and its use case: Fix the money, fix the world.

Calling a small group "idiots" who unilaterally changed the code ignores how Bitcoin actually evolves. The OP_RETURN increase and related changes went through public discussion, review, and merge processes in Bitcoin Core—flawed as governance can be, but not a secret coup. Bitcoin has never been perfectly "immutable" in its rules; soft forks like SegWit were far more impactful and controversial, yet they strengthened security and scalability without destroying credibility. BIP 110 itself is a **small group** (Knots maintainers, vocal activists) attempting a low-threshold soft fork with minimal miner support (~1%). If successful via mandatory signaling, it would be the very unilateral change you decry—potentially causing confusion or splits. Node counts are easy to inflate (especially Tor); they don't override hashrate or economic reality. Raising alarms about malware/legal risks from data is overblown—Bitcoin nodes already relay arbitrary data today, and users bear responsibility. The fee market has historically deterred abuse better than top-down limits. "Fix the money" is best achieved by keeping the protocol neutral and predictable, not by temporary consensus patches that signal developers can keep tweaking rules when they dislike emergent uses. Expanding block utility via market demand (while fees protect scarcity) strengthens, rather than weakens, Bitcoin's immune system. Immutability matters most for the 21M cap and monetary properties—not for enforcing a narrow vision of "approved" data.

Fix the money Fix many things

Correction. I meant a small group of greedy idiots that have no stake in #Bitcoin as money.

Me thinks Bitcoin is money regardless.