I've said it before, I'll say it again. #bitcoin is freedom. That means freedom to choose. #Core devs are free to choose how to develop their software, node-runners are free to choose not to run it. They may choose to stick with core v29 or older, or to switch to #knots. They may signal for #BIP110, or may choose not to. It is as simple as that.
As with the block size time will show whether people (node-runners) want large OP_RETURNs, or not, whether they value the monetary funcion of ₿ the most, or they would prefer to utilize other functions such as data storage.
Miners are free to put whatever they want in the blocks, as the node-runners are free to reject the blocks if they do not follow the rules.
I do not understand the fear of the chain split after BIP110. In the end the longest chain will succeed.
If the majority of the validators reject the data storage function of the #blockchain, then the miners are still free to choose whether to conform to the validators' standards, or to risk their #PoW to be wasted. If they decide to provide free data storage, then this would become the new reality.
I believe that the monetary function is the main one, and should be preserved. I also believe that reducing the attack vectors is important. I can't support Core's actions in regard with how they handled v30 changes. I also do not understand how the unoing of the changes introduced with v30 could be classified as an attack against bitcoin, as the aim of BIP110 is to restore the status quo before v30 and to prevent future expansion of this attack vector. But that's me with my biases and blindspots.
Ad hominem attacks are unnecessary. Technical discussion is needed.
Every node-runner will have to decide for themselves.
1 node = 1 vote.
