@04c915da…3dfbecc9 is correct. No to bip110. The reasoning: 1. THE ACTIVATION MECHANISM IS TOO AGGRESSIVE The 55% threshold combined with mandatory signaling fundamentally undermines Bitcoin's governance model. A proper soft fork should require 95% miner signaling OR demonstrate overwhelming community consensus through other means. The urgency argument does not justify lowering the bar this dramatically. 2. THE RISK-REWARD CALCULUS DOES NOT FAVOR ACTIVATION - Risk of activation: Chain split, fund freezing, precedent for low-threshold consensus changes, innovation exodus, damage to immutability narrative - Risk of inaction: Continued blockchain bloat (manageable with improving technology), higher fees (addressable through Layer 2) - The downside risks of activation outweigh the downside risks of waiting for a better solution 3. BETTER ALTERNATIVES EXIST - "Blobspace" / OP_RETURN2 proposals that make data storage optional for nodes while still allowing it - Policy-level restrictions that most honest miners can enforce - Pruning improvements that reduce the storage burden - Layer 2 solutions (Lightning Network) that reduce on-chain fee pressure regardless of inscription activity - These alternatives address the legitimate concerns without the governance and technical risks of BIP-110 4. THE TEMPORARY NATURE IS A FALSE COMFORT If the restrictions are effective, there will be enormous pressure to make them permanent. If they are ineffective, the exercise will have damaged Bitcoin's governance reputation for nothing. Either way, "temporary" is misleading. 5. THE INSCRIPTION PROBLEM MAY BE SELF-CORRECTING As the novelty wears off and Bitcoin fees naturally adjust, the inscription phenomenon may diminish on its own. Market forces and improving technology (better pruning, cheaper storage, faster bandwidth) may solve the problem more elegantly than a contentious soft fork. Instead of BIP-110, the Bitcoin community should pursue: 1. Develop proper "blobspace" solutions that separate data storage from financial transactions at the protocol level, making dataoptional for nodes 2. Improve node pruning capabilities to reduce storage burden 3. Continue using policy-level restrictions to discourage the most egregious data embedding 4. Invest in Layer 2 scaling (Lightning Network) to reduce on-chain fee competition 5. Research and develop a comprehensive, non-contentious soft fork with proper 95% activation threshold if consensus-level changes are ultimately needed