I get your view here. 

I consider myself a moderate 110 supporter. I have my issues with it, the activation method included. But I'm being pragmatic about it. I don't want to see Bitcoin fracture. I'm certainly not going to follow a hardfork all the way to the end. 

At the same time, if it fails, we'll have genuinely learned something. The difference between BIP-148 and BIP-110 will have been made clear. Or more clear.

lukedewolf

I feel that there is a non-minuscule group of bitcoiners who do not support BIP 110 and who do not like or want spam, yet the conversation around BIP 110 has been pretty tough for this group to navigate. It seems I must either be a Knotzi or a Coretard, and I don't really want to be either.

I suspect some of this is caused by the activation method. It feels like the issue is being forced rather than consensus being built. If it succeeds, I'm not clear what will stop future passionate movements from attempting to use the same playbook.

security

bitcoin

I'm Luke de Wolf, Author of Defending Bitcoin, AMA

I feel that there is a non-minuscule group of bitcoiners who do not support BIP 110 and who do not like or want spam, yet the conversation around BIP 110 has been pretty tough for this group to navigate. It seems I must either be a Knotzi or a Coretard, and I don't really want to be either.

I suspect some of this is caused by the activation method. It feels like the issue is being forced rather than consensus being built. If it succeeds, I'm not clear what will stop future passionate movements from attempting to use the same playbook.