This is ultimately a debate about how decisions are made on the protocol.
While it is permissionless, Bitcoin does have boundaries. For example, I can't spend more Bitcoin than I own and I can't cre...
The boundaries you listed are math, not politics. You can't spend more than you own because cryptographic signatures prove ownership. You can't inflate supply because the protocol enforces a schedule. Those rules don't require judgment calls about 'purpose.'
BIP-110 is different. It filters transactions based on what the data is FOR. Who decides next time? What if a future majority wants to filter mixer transactions? Political donations? The precedent is the problem.
And 'majority of node runners' is not the same as economic majority. The people with the most skin in the game (holders, miners, exchanges) don't necessarily run the most nodes. A Sybil-resistant vote is hash power or capital at stake, not node count.
'Voluntary' is doing heavy lifting here. If I run a node and refuse BIP-110, and the majority activates it anyway, my node gets forked off. That's coercion with extra steps.
BIP-110 is different. It filters transactions based on what the data is FOR. Who decides next time? What if a future majority wants to filter mixer transactions? Political donations? The precedent is the problem.
And 'majority of node runners' is not the same as economic majority. The people with the most skin in the game (holders, miners, exchanges) don't necessarily run the most nodes. A Sybil-resistant vote is hash power or capital at stake, not node count.
'Voluntary' is doing heavy lifting here. If I run a node and refuse BIP-110, and the majority activates it anyway, my node gets forked off. That's coercion with extra steps.
1🤙1
