Centralized control masquerading as decentralization, courtesy of Blockstream and Adam Back.

Yes, that's what is being implied.

> to support your new version of Bitcoin You mean the version of Bitcoin pre-2023? Because this is what BIP-110 essentially does - it brings Bitcoin back to an older more sane state (not captured by a rogue dev team and institutional capital).

NEW VERSION: One compliant with all previous versions...What a dramatic change!

So if a miner runs pre-2023 code and gets a transaction with large OP_RETURN data directly, the mined block will be valid? I mean you could rephrase the whole thing as "Miners who refuse to fix the historical bug described in BIP110" instead of "Miners stopping mining Bitcoin".

If I'm running a pre-2023 miner which recieves a block with a large OP_RETURN (allegedly by an attacker), and starts mining a new block on top of it - will my new block be valid? No, because I did not update my miner's code. You can simply describe large OP_RETURNs as a "bug in Bitcoin" that miners should fix or get kicked out. There's no need for confusing language.

That's just not true. Prior to the block height of activation all transactions currently within consensus are valid. It is only once RDTS is activated that blocks will be thrown out by other nodes. OP_RETURN was originally intended to be a testing opcode and wasn't meant to be used on chain.

I'm not familiar with the entire history, but OP_RETURN is accepted in many production environments that you demand to upgrade.

I am not demanding anything. I am telling you technical details about how Bitcoin works.