There's a difference between someone whining (like what many diehard Core supporters have been doing) and someone who is trying to thoroughly explain why they believe BIP110 opposers have their incentives misaligned with Bitcoins core principles and are blowing this entire situation out of proportion. The fork is not destroying the main chain. And I don't believe that you believe that either; you're just signal-boosting with that narrative. 110 and Knots are nothing more than a meaningful protest movement, within the community, rather than an existential threat. A philosophical debate that could actually benefit and strengthen bitcoins core values in the long-term, just as the Blocksize Wars did. With all that being said, i think it's time for Core supporters and devs to put a stop to their inflammatory rhetoric and focus more on cooperating with the Knots/110 community and vice versa. It's important to keep in mind that Knots no longer comprises a trivial portion of the network, so refusing to give valid counterarguments to the ones their node runners have given... well... doesn't look good. Also, the ignoring of the opinions of so many who play a detrimental infrastructural role in the network, can't possibly lead to a stable and productive solution. The two parties will have to come to a compromise, at some point. I think we all recognize that. This debate also brings up other serious issues that require the attention and cooperation from the community, as a whole: 1. Should there be limitations on non-payment data and, if so, how extensive should they be? Bitcoin was meant to be a payment network, not a data bazaar. Transforming it into the latter, for whatever reason—whether it be fee revenue or bitcoins underlying censorship resistance principle—is not a step in the right direction. 2. Should we re-evaluate the existing fee market structure? I believe we definitely should. Although, that's a topic for another time. 3. How can we balance miner revenue incentives