The blog post is a good read, and it helps me understand both sides. The existence of a fork proposal proves that the BIP110 rejection point of view is not negligible and needs to be considered. Yet I feel many points in the argument are weighted differently depending on the narrative being transmitted: - BIP110 does not have real support and won’t be backed by any big platform in the industry… while it would create a chainsplit that will halt platforms until seeing which chain settles into the other? if there is no real support from the big guys this won’t happen. No chainsplit and no indecision, just a new altcoin. - We cannot ignore the bitcoin centralized infrastructure of miners & platforms by pushing a fork and voting like in a democracy… but at the same time the changes introduced by the fork would set a precedent on regulatory pressure into bitcoin? are centralization and regulation things we cannot ignore nor avoid by forking… or something we do not want to set precedents of by forking? same type of incongruence that made me take the OP_RETURN changes with a lot of salt: the size limit didn’t serve any purpose nor prevented any spam… yet they had to take it off? They are not bad points, and you could probably make me agree on them separately, but putting it all together creates a lot of contradictions in my head.