The first principles here are what most people miss & how I think Jeff is approaching this. BIP110 represents a new leap forward in Bitcoin decentralization.

He said that people need to do their own work on it. Jeff is just one dude, one node in the network. Idk if there's anyone more humble about their opinion, or influence than he.

Thank you.

Hi hi

I think these are strawman arguments. Do I have the meaning of that right? Sometimes I say something and it means something else, forgive me if I'm doing that here.

But my point is that there have been multiple good faith attempts to tackle the issue of UTXO bloat. This is a problem that I see there is consensus on.

Consensus for BIP110 is building.

The group in question has been the cause of the UTXO set bloat, a gradualism that has lead to where we are today. The users of the dubbed "spam" are not an arbitrary group - their use of Bitcoin causes harm.

Great point, we have moved beyond a strictly technical community. IETF etiquette is good, and should be promoted, however the tent is bigger now. What is the best concern you've heard about BIP110, something that has that forest for the trees perspective?

How many of the questions in this thread are "well ackchually" guy questions? Said differently - how many of these questions are so nuanced that you consider them edge cases?

I think there are many well meaning technically literate folks who want the best for Bitcoin, yet they don't see the forest for the trees.