So, I promised to actually and clear-eyed go through Saylor's AI-slopped "110 Reasons BIP 110 Is a Bad Idea" article. #1527438

Went over it with a fine-combed brush, like a good, neutral journalist, trying to assess the points neutrally.

The clankers say it wasn't AI generatedThe clankers say it wasn't AI generated

I asked Grok and ChatGPT whether this was human or AI and they both returned "overwhelmingly human" (with some light AI editing touch). Still, pretty good indication that not all that is bad is AI.

This was horrible to read. As in: dude can't use words or string them together in a compelling, non-monotonous way.

At about #60, I wanted to kill myself. Enough sloppy bs, and in such horrid linguistic format too. (I had already cleared out the dishes and started the laundry.) Patience done, annoyed at same-ish versions of a few key arguments. Why didn’t he just do 11 reasons? (would have been nice numerical for BIP-110 as well) – or 10, hint of binary.

TL;DR = Saylor could have just condensed these into a few main points. No need for the extravaganza.

That was well put:

“Bitcoin does not need guardians of purity. It needs guardians of neutrality.”“Bitcoin does not need guardians of purity. It needs guardians of neutrality.”

Bitcoin’s strength is not that everyone agrees on every use. Its strength is that disagreement is contained by neutral rules and hard consensus.
Fees price block space. Nodes choose policy and validate consensus. Miners build blocks. Holders allocate capital. Developers propose code. Companies build infrastructure and applications. Protocol changes should prevail only when validation, security, utility, and capital reach overwhelming alignment.

Thus:

This is not a defense of every inscription, token, file, or application. It is a defense of the neutral rules that allow Bitcoin to remain open while markets reward what is useful and abandon what is not. Bitcoin should remain conservative at the base layer.

In total, I placed 31 in the "Good" column; 11 in the "Bad" column"; and the 58 remainder in the middle, "Ambiguous/unclear or derivative of other arguments."

Most of these 58 bullshit slopped points are just differently worded echoes or derivative arguments from another pointMost of these 58 bullshit slopped points are just differently worded echoes or derivative arguments from another point

And, shockingly, a lot of these arguments boil down exactly to "should/should not" constrict Bitcoin on-chain use cases... we already knew that. Duh: that's one arena of ideological disagreements over Bitcoin's purpose; no need for 110 AI-slopped reasons.

If I squint, most of these "Good" arguments condense into the same things:

• #54: BIP 110 cannot eliminate data embedding. The specification acknowledges that users can split data into smaller pieces or disguise it within permitted structures.
• #4: Bitcoin cannot read intent ("The network cannot know whether bytes represent an image, a proof, a contract, metadata, an authentication record, or a future application.")
• #91: The rules expire, but the precedent does not. Future campaigns can cite BIP 110 as evidence that consensus may be used to suppress disfavored valid activity.
• #6: A social message is not sufficient grounds for a consensus change.

I found #80 to be a pretty good indication altogether

Bitcoin need not choose between money and technology. Its monetary strength can be reinforced by an open network that supports secure wallets, contracts, custody, settlement, and innovation.

= pretty good indication of where sides clash. BIP-110 side says yes, data storage and application adds drag and risk vectors (e.g., legal, CSAM shite) to bitcoin's monetary use. Saylor here says no it doesn't.

I side with the BIPtards here (any nonmonetary usage takes away from the pristine monetary purpose); where I disagree is that it's immaterial -- see sub-1sat/vByte fee rates.

Full disclosure, I hold about 50k sats worth of contracts on the No side of the two Predyx (here and here markets. May or may not trade these opportunistically before solution.