To be clear: IF miners switch AFTER activation, reversing every transaction on the main chain would include wiping out their own mining revenue during that period. Assuming the reason miners didn't switch AT or before activation was because of lack of user support for bip110, that's a heck of a lot of incentive to instead trigger an eventual bip110 rejection soft fork (effectively, a hard chain-split from bip110) if/when bip110 ever gets even close to threatening to gain majority user and/or miner support. (personally, I would be shocked if it ever gets to this point). In a scenario where legal fear tactics scares miners into leaving a would-be user majority rejection chain for the user minority bip110 chain, that's on those miners, and I couldn't care less. What ultimately matters in a hard chain-split is where the user activity is; not where hash power is split between 2 chains that no longer compete with each other for hash power (this is why the users - not the miners - ultimately decides what bitcoin is). PS. if bip110 happens to gain the majority user and miner support prior to the drop-dead activation date(block), then so be it. I don't think what bip110 actually proposes to change is per se terrible. I really only object to the mechanism for activation at that time even if it sorely lacks consensus support. 📝 e36f2844…