I don't think I dislike BIP 110 enough to run something like this.

If there was a soft fork proposal using a similar activation method but intending to prevent OFAC sanctioned addresses from transacting, I would certainly run 

To me, whoever proposes a change to bitcoin is always the aggressor. Some changes end up being changes that we agree are good and accept (eg. Segwit or Taproot). But my first assumption is that the any change to bitcoin is hostile. Therefore, I think using something like 

 or even a change to the PoW algorithm is valid to prevent changes.

bitcoin

URSF-110: A POC using "invalidateblock" to reject BIP110 - @supertestnet

Scoresby

I don't think I dislike BIP 110 enough to run something like this. 

If there was a soft fork proposal using a similar activation method but intending to prevent OFAC sanctioned addresses from transacting, I would certainly run `invalidateblock`. 

To me, whoever proposes a change to bitcoin is always the aggressor. Some changes end up being changes that we agree are good and accept (eg. Segwit or Taproot). But my first assumption is that the any change to bitcoin is hostile. Therefore, I think using something like `invalidateblock` or even a change to the PoW algorithm is valid to prevent changes.