Thats a possibility.
But a temporary minimal softfork to get your things together would have been a step in the right direction.
This outcome is in my opinion a big hit at the soul of bitcoin. When...
Many rational-minded spam-opposing Bitcoiners probably weighed this too and concluded that even a temporary soft fork wouldn’t have amounted to much more than virtue signaling. This was because the issue concerned relay policy, not some existential threat to Bitcoin.
Education efforts about how to configure your own relay policy or about using different implementations (Knots pre-110) would have probably been the efforts preferred by the market (economic nodes).
A lot of Bitcoiners are quietly holding the line. They’re just not loudly parroting. It’s possible to be ideological (against spam) and pragmatic (coming up with ways to mitigate the spam in the least harmful way to the protocol, aka having two thoughts in the head at the same time).
Node runners are still keeping the “Big Bitcoin” in check. UASF reality and possibility still exists. That’s hardly fiat. Trying to change Bitcoin by ultimatums and lacking consensus seems more fiat to me.
Education efforts about how to configure your own relay policy or about using different implementations (Knots pre-110) would have probably been the efforts preferred by the market (economic nodes).
A lot of Bitcoiners are quietly holding the line. They’re just not loudly parroting. It’s possible to be ideological (against spam) and pragmatic (coming up with ways to mitigate the spam in the least harmful way to the protocol, aka having two thoughts in the head at the same time).
Node runners are still keeping the “Big Bitcoin” in check. UASF reality and possibility still exists. That’s hardly fiat. Trying to change Bitcoin by ultimatums and lacking consensus seems more fiat to me.