Good luck

I spent the last few weeks looking into this as deeply as possible. What I concluded is that this is a political power struggle much more than a technical fix. It has to do with what we believe bitcoin to be, but it also has to do with how it is upgraded and governed. The BIP110 camp knows that this BIP only stops spam in Op_Return. Spam can be added to other areas of a transaction with very little loss. Knots and BIP110 are a vote of no confidence in Core. In order to stop spam permanently there would need to be more BIPs and that's the slippery slope most of the Core side is concerned about. The Core team is trying to dismiss the debate by not engaging in it. They have the upper hand through momentum so it's better if they don't engage in the drama and get people thinking too hard about this. Many of them think Luke is a nut who wants to control Bitcoin but I think that's more of a reflection of their fear of losing control. Regarding the recent software changes their concern seems to be more about UTXO bloat than spam. The way the inscriptions were running was bloating the UTXO set in a huge way. However there's also a small subset of Core people who seem to be pro-shitcoins on Bitcoin. I think both sides want Bitcoin to succeed, but have different visions about what that will look like. The way BIP110 flag day was set feels irresponsible to me because it's threatening to fork Bitcoin. I'm not sure if this issue is significant enough to make a move like that. The arguments being presented publicly are often ad hominem or they are failing to speak to the political nature of this situation so it's very confusing. I'm certainly still missing information, but this is my best guess at what's happening so far. Core = Incumbent / Knots = Opposition

If I could have a third way I'd like to see more diversity in node implementations, but if the only other implementation with significant adoption is threatening a hard fork to force the incumbent into a BIP that doesn't improve diversity.

this is apparently a hard ask... #fuckcore #runknots

I think that npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx said that it would, but I might remember wrong. I think it's a good idea to tag the people who have said that BIP110 gives Luke control so that they can explain what they mean. If they so choose to.

That all sounds pretty good. The only part I think is debatable is “Spam can be added to other areas of a transaction with very little loss.”

It doesn't: Merely writing a full node client or a fork doesn't give anybody control over anything. People need to voluntarily download and run the code in order for it to matter. If BIP-110 succeeds that would not indicate Ocean mining or whoever hijacked Bitcoin, but that their vision of what Bitcoin is has wider legitimacy than core's does. I personally think that is the case, but let's see.

That makes sense.

i think the original claim was "bip-110 is about firing core". and then who will take their place?

That doesn’t explain how Luke gets control of Bitcoin.

he controls the knots repo. not a bit moves in there without Luke's blessing.

Ok? Anyone is free to fork Knots.

not everyone has what it takes to be a maintainer of the reference implementation of bitcoin. in fact most people don't. it's true that anyone can fork a repo, but that does not mean the fork will have any network effect. knots is probably the largest hub after core. so people are assuming it would take over in a hypothetical scenario where the core devs disappear. idk.

I think people finally and permanently woke up to the reality that one dominant implementation was a significant risk. I had concerns about this several years ago, but nobody cared at the time.