Thanks for keeping the convo going—respect your passion on this; it’s clear you’re dug in on protecting Bitcoin’s core use case. Let’s unpack your points with data (pulling from Coin Dance, Bitnodes trackers, and recent discussions as of mid-March 2026), staying factual and fair. I’ll address each, then dive into why BIP-110 is a flawed path forward. On the 4:1 downvotes/upvotes: Totally fair to highlight the raw reaction on #32359 (424 down vs. 105 up)—that PR’s full removal of limits was a non-starter for many, and the backlash was real. But framing the merged #32406 as an “override” skips that it was a scaled-back compromise after closing #32359 in just 15 days due to feedback. Reviews there leaned positive among active devs (17 ACKs, minimal NACKs), even if broader sentiment was mixed. It’s not ignoring opposition; it’s open-source iteration—controversy yes, but not a unilateral steamroll. On Knots’ 2% → 22% growth: Impressive jump from early 2025 to now (Coin Dance: ~4,980 Knots nodes out of ~22,917 total, or 21.7% as of March 14). But calling it a “mass exodus” overstates it—Core still holds 78.1% (~17,904 nodes), and Knots remains compatible (no fork yet). Bitcoin Cash comparison? Apples to oranges: BCH forked into its own chain in 2017, with node counts hovering ~1-2k total (separate network), never claiming “22% of BTC nodes” because it’s not sharing the same chain. Knots’ rise shows real discontent, but it’s more a protest vote within Bitcoin than a full defection—many Knots users still run it alongside Core ideals. On BIP-110’s 7% signaling: Solid growth for a niche proposal (up from ~2-3% in Jan 2026 per trackers like thebitcoinportal.com), and yeah, beating CTV’s (BIP-119) sub-1% is notable since CTV stalled amid broader scaling debates. But “exceptional” for a pending fork? Context matters: Only ~1/3 of Knots nodes have upgraded to BIP-110 versions (e.g., per Coin Dance breakdowns like 1,030 for v0.3, 228 for v0.4.1), and miner signaling is tiny—one readiness block mined so far (per recent X threads from @w_s_bitcoin and others). It’s momentum in a bubble, but far from network-wide traction. On the datacarrier default shift as “capture”: I get the frustration—flipping from 80 bytes to uncapped defaults does favor data-heavy uses (like Citrea’s ZK-rollups) and adds config hassle for strict-limit fans. But it’s not deletion or forced “spam-friendliness”; options like -datacarrier=0 remain (clarified in #33453). The rationale was harm reduction: Strict defaults were pushing data into UTXO-bloating dust (still ~38-40% bloat per node reports), not tailored to one VC project but to fix inefficient workarounds. Degraded UX for some? Sure, but it’s a policy tweak, not consensus lock-in—node runners choose. On 20% “defection” as repudiation: Again, ~22% Knots share post-v30 (over ~6-12 months, not instant) is a strong signal of division, but Core hasn’t “lost 1/5th”—those nodes are still on the same chain, validating the same blocks. It’s repudiation from a vocal segment (e.g., anti-inscription crowd), but adoption data shows Core v30 upgraded at record pace initially (per Bitnodes historicals). If anything, it highlights Bitcoin’s strength: Decentralized choice without immediate splits. On “consensus” vs. failure: Rough consensus in Bitcoin isn’t unanimous plebiscite—it’s maintainers weighing contributor input, tests, and long-term viability (per dev mailing lists). If failure looks like a chain split or stalled adoption, we’re not there; this was a debated merge that shipped, with community pushback leading to alternatives like Knots. True failure? Proposals that fracture the network without broad buy-in… which brings me to BIP-110. BIP-110 (proposed Dec 2025 by Knots devs like Luke Dashjr) is a temporary (1-year) soft fork tightening data rules: 34-byte output limit, 83-byte OP_RETURN cap, opcode bans, etc., to curb “spam” like inscriptions. It’s well-intentioned for prioritizing Bitcoin as money, but it’s misguided and likely doomed for these reasons: • High chain-split risk: It uses a UASF with a low 55% miner threshold and mandatory activation at block ~961,632 (per the BIP spec on GitHub/bips). If it activates without overwhelming support, non-upgraded nodes/miners reject blocks, splitting the chain—worse than BCH/BSV messes. Even proponents admit this (e.g., Jameson Lopp’s blog calls it “reckless” for that reason). With only ~7% node signaling and one miner block so far, it’s nowhere near safe. • Counterproductive harm: Strictening consensus (not just policy) could push data hoarders to even worse evasions—like more UTXO dust or sidechains—exacerbating the bloat it aims to fix. Bitcoin’s permissionless nature means data finds a way; better to evolve scaling (e.g., via L2s or efficiency tweaks) than censor via forks. It also risks invalidating legit txs mid-flight, eroding trust. • No broad consensus or miner buy-in: Unlike successful forks (e.g., SegWit), it lacks miner hashrate (near-zero signaling blocks), dev diversity (mostly Knots echo chamber), or economic node support. CTV failed similarly due to division; this is narrower but more aggressive. Critics (including Core devs) argue it attacks decentralization by forcing nodes to “resist” via splits, not incentives. • Temporary = slippery slope: A 1-year “test” with extension potential sets precedent for ongoing rule tweaks, inviting governance wars. Bitcoin thrives on immutability; this invites more forks over “spam” definitions. It’ll fail because Bitcoin resists contentious changes without supermajority—low signaling means activation flops or splits into a tiny Knots chain (like UASF attempts in 2017 that fizzled). Run Knots if it fits your view, but pushing BIP-110 risks fragmenting what we all value: one unified, resilient Bitcoin. Better paths: Improve policy tools or build on top without forking the base. Thoughts?