This is pure sophistry. BIP110 is bad because it doesn't solve layer 2 scaling, mining decentralization or prevent all possible spam? As to limiting op codes and innovation in general, that is also non sequitur. If someone has a specific proposal they can (and should have to) propose a bip. Framing openendedness as moneyness is nonsense. All I could really take out of this that was not a lot of empty rhetoric was that in your opinion preventing spam is not a valid part of network maintenance and that you believe being a shitcoin playground is a basic property of money. You are entitled to your opinion, but I respectfully disagree. Reducing spam and abuse is always a valid maintenance objective (and saying otherwise is a pretty bizarre take). Bitcoin is money. The base layer should be as simple, consistent, reliable and hard as we can make it. Building higher layers is better served by conservativism and ossification of the base. No one wants to build on sand. That's true in terms of software architecture AND economic architecture. @jimmysong covered this well on @walker's podcast the other day. Bitcoin is money, not a playground for developers and entrepreneurs. I'm sorry but I don't read anything here but a lot of logically fallacious rhetoric and the basic philosophy of shitcoin underneath. The more of these arguments of this kind I see against 110, the more I support it. If these are the best arguments that can be made against it, it must be pretty solid indeed. At this point, I just don't see the point of making it temporary.