pull down to refresh
I understand restricting the rules can be framed as excluding certain types of behaviour. But its a bit more nuanced in terms of neutrality. The network will still be neutral when processing within the newer and narrower rules (proposed by BIP110). But there will always be some kind of restrictions inherent in the protocol design -- obviously even now not any arbitrary data of any nature of any size can be 'processed' by the network.
Unity emerges from the complex interaction of nodes (and the software the owner chooses to run), developers, miners, users. Whether the new narrower rules eventuate or not, Bitcoin will remain and the unity of the network will reveal itself. Note unity doesn't mean any individual receives his desired outcome, it means an emergent order that everyone continues to works in line with.
Just some thoughts your comment prompted.
The biggest issue with BIP110 is not just the direct technical consequences but the precedent it sets for how Bitcoin’s rules can be modified to exclude certain types of behavior. Once we accept changes that target specific uses of block space the neutrality principle becomes compromised and this opens the door for future proposals to impose even more restrictive or subjective criteria. Historically soft forks have succeeded when they addressed clear security or scalability issues and had overwhelming consensus across miners developers and economic nodes. BIP110 fails this test on every front.
The low signaling threshold is a dangerous mechanism because it incentives fragmentation rather than unity. Even if proponents claim it is temporary history suggests that temporary censorship style changes tend to linger or evolve into permanent features. Bitcoin’s resilience depends not on reactionary forks but on robust fee markets and incremental optimization. Trying to legislate away what some perceive as spam is both ineffective and divisive.
If a proposal cannot convince miners who secure the network and cannot attract strong economic backing then it is largely an academic exercise rather than a viable upgrade path. Effort should be redirected towards scaling improvements better mempool management and educating users on the economics of block space instead of politicizing protocol changes.