I wish you luck, and I hope I’m wrong about your likelihood of success. I don’t think this fork will end well. After the BIP-110 failure (predominantly due to miner centralization IMO), I switched from BIP-110 to an old version of Knots. My focus is now on what we can do as a community to fix miner centralization on the main chain. I guess you’ve reached the conclusion that firing the miners is the right solution, but you will likely only have a small subset of the BIP-110 supporters (who were only about 15% of Bitcoiners) following you. That might be as small as 1% or 2% of Bitcoiners, and that’s probably not going to have enough critical mass to compete. When Bitcoin started, it had no juggernaut to compete with in the space. So it would be naive to see this fork as starting over in a purer way. It will need to compete with the main chain of BTC that all the suitcoiners, influencers, centralized exchanges, VCs, miners and normies support. It will also need to compete with cryptos like Monero and Ethereum.

Replies (3)

Why can't we do both things? Fork of and try to fix miner centralization? We should have multiple plans, "they" do. Watch how many people here attack 1% or 2% also. When they start censoring transactions later, that's when many eyes will turn to the other chains.
"... To fix miner centralization". Are you sure there is miner centralization in Btc? Mining pool is not equivalent of a large miner like Marathon.
For the moment there is no need to leave Bitcoin. The new chain is alternative that will chug along in parallel, small, tiny, almost invisible. But it will be there and in my opinion with better DNA. Similar to how Bitcoin Knots was there for a decade with less than 1% of nodes usage. But in a critical moment it played the role it was designed to play.