I outline my reasons for opposing it in this document:
https://github.com/supertestnet/ursf-110
I analyzed this page and found many logical fallacies and incorrect assumptions about BIP:
1- Slippery Slope + Exaggeration
Calling BIP110 “frozen funds” is like calling a spam filter “deleted emails.” BIP110 is standardness policy — not consensus. Your transaction exists. It just doesn’t get relayed by nodes that reject spam. This is basic Bitcoin literacy.
2- Moving the Goalposts + Nirvana Fallacy
The URSF-110 README: “I like anti-spam soft forks, just not this one, not now, not with this date, not until more exchanges signal.” That’s the Nirvana Fallacy. The perfect soft fork that arrives on your schedule will never come. Satoshi didn’t wait for permission.
3- appeal to fear logical fallacy:
You frame the chain split as “BIP110 users leaving Bitcoin.” Satoshi framed it differently: “If the majority of nodes enforce rules, they define the valid chain.” The people loading Bitcoin’s base layer with JPEG metadata are the ones diverging from peer-to-peer electronic cash. The departure vector runs the other direction.
4- self defeating argument:
You admit in writing: “I am a very bad coder. It probably doesn’t even work.” He then asks miners to realign their economic incentives around his broken proof-of-concept. OCEAN Mining and Start9 are running production infrastructure for BIP110. We’re meant to be afraid of a self-described script kiddie’s README.
5- appeal to authority
Citing a micro-liquidity prediction market as evidence BIP110 will fail is the same logic that said SegWit UASF would fail. Miners don’t read Predyx. They read fee revenue and chain split risk.
6- bare assertion fallacy
“Most node runners are indifferent” — citation needed. You then immediately acknowledge adoption is growing. So which is it? Indifference or growth? You can’t use both as arguments in the same README.
1- Slippery Slope + Exaggeration
Calling BIP110 “frozen funds” is like calling a spam filter “deleted emails.” BIP110 is standardness policy — not consensus. Your transaction exists. It just doesn’t get relayed by nodes that reject spam. This is basic Bitcoin literacy.
2- Moving the Goalposts + Nirvana Fallacy
The URSF-110 README: “I like anti-spam soft forks, just not this one, not now, not with this date, not until more exchanges signal.” That’s the Nirvana Fallacy. The perfect soft fork that arrives on your schedule will never come. Satoshi didn’t wait for permission.
3- appeal to fear logical fallacy:
You frame the chain split as “BIP110 users leaving Bitcoin.” Satoshi framed it differently: “If the majority of nodes enforce rules, they define the valid chain.” The people loading Bitcoin’s base layer with JPEG metadata are the ones diverging from peer-to-peer electronic cash. The departure vector runs the other direction.
4- self defeating argument:
You admit in writing: “I am a very bad coder. It probably doesn’t even work.” He then asks miners to realign their economic incentives around his broken proof-of-concept. OCEAN Mining and Start9 are running production infrastructure for BIP110. We’re meant to be afraid of a self-described script kiddie’s README.
5- appeal to authority
Citing a micro-liquidity prediction market as evidence BIP110 will fail is the same logic that said SegWit UASF would fail. Miners don’t read Predyx. They read fee revenue and chain split risk.
6- bare assertion fallacy
“Most node runners are indifferent” — citation needed. You then immediately acknowledge adoption is growing. So which is it? Indifference or growth? You can’t use both as arguments in the same README.