The technical side is too complex for me to fully judge. But in case of doubt, I would prefer fewer features if that helps preserve decentralization in the long term, because decentralization is the highest priority for me. I would rather have centralized scaling companies than a less decentralized main chain. My concern is that if the BIP fails, everything will just stay the same. I don’t think more time for developers will change anything. With BIP110, it seems nothing will happen unless it activates. If it gets activated, everyone would have one year to finally address the spam problem. If developers worked together to find a compromise instead of ignoring or insulting each other, they would probably find the best solution. But if things continue like this, nothing will happen, and I am willing to sacrifice some functionality for decentralization.

In Bitcoin, the majority of nodes ultimately decide the rules. If we allow more and more other use cases, then the trade-offs shift away from money and toward other areas. Since decentralization and scaling can never be achieved without compromises, this would mean we are slowly pushing Bitcoin in a different direction.

Once other use cases exist on Bitcoin, the topic of confiscation becomes much bigger, because to achive the best form of money, more users would have to be controlled, or restricted. If Bitcoin is no longer the best chain for storing and sending money, then a gap opens for other projects that can do this better and attract more capital as a result.

I understand the concerns, but I think if we really want Bitcoin to remain money, we need to protect that use case first, before Bitcoin is used for other things.