It's tempting to put more work into the design, but damn there are so many screens I'm about to just say fuck it and leave it as it is😂

I think the "temporary" nature of #BIP110 is actually it's what leads to the reasoning of @ODELL that it has potential for being used to "threaten a reorg" later. The rejoining of the chains later does actually just seems like more risk than reward and threatens history of the main chain in the case of the BIP failing. I'm running #BIP110 right now because it's directionally correct and majority support of the BIP would be better than it failing completely. But if someone makes a BIP-110 version that is not "temporary" I will run this, as I view it much safer for bitcoin, because it can either succeed or fail gracefully.

The best View quoted note →

If you are anti BIP -110, the best thing you can do is HOLD CORE ACCOUNTABLE BY HAVING THEM REVERT THE RELAY POLICY TO 82 BYTES. If the inscription bug was the gasoline, that action and the unwillingness to waver on it was the match that lit the fire. The fact that the pro-core side doesn't even consider this an option is why so many people are abandoning it as the reference implementation and running a fork. Do people not realize there is easy reversal of course that would show good faith? Honestly the pro core influencers are all acting like this is a rogue element of a few bad actors. No there are a LOT of people who are fed up with Core for directly supporting spam with the change of mempool policy. Core is dying in the bed they made. Even if the fork fails, they will be dead in that bed unless they change course and listen to users with valid concerns.

So they're gonna use the Epstein files to push internet identity, rather than arrest the pedophiles. "Protect the kids" by enslaving them.

Wow we are so lucky that every facet of our government cares about our lost dogs!