Should we be fixing a problem before it has arrived? How can we accurately define the problem if it isn't here yet? (high on chain fees) are their consequences to fixing problems that currently don't exist? Is it ever possible to define "honest party"? "so our collective goal is to keep transactions off chain as much as possible"... Aren't high fees the only thing to incentivise this, the literal pricing mechanism and tampering with the pricing signals gets us into some serious trouble? Look to any of the unlimited historical examples. Would you agree it might be possible to remove too many transactions off chain? What would the result look like if so.... If you look at Bitcoin alone you might think it is dying, similar to an old tree being overtapped, transactions representing its the flow of sap, and spam representing the buildup of moss or fungi. On chain fees are a measure of how much off-chain transactions could take place before damaging the underlying chain. If we see 'subjective' spam appearing on chain, maybe we overtapped the tree... maybe we're killing it. Instead of manually removing the moss or fungi build up with bip110 we should on chain some transactions and aggressively discouraging bitcoin derivatives socially. 1 solving problems before they arrive. 2 creates new problems, spam. 3 solve for new problem, setting precedent by defining spam externally. Instead of using pricing incentives the only real spam filter Looks a lot like the beginning of a negative feedback loop or governmental growth. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by "good intentions"." I agree with every one of your points but it is the consequences I am afraid of. As we're all aware we can't plant another tree.