Essentially, your argument boils down to this: "There isn't enough support, therefore it won't happen, therefore supporting it is irrational."

That shifts the discussion from technical merit to social conformity.

Your underlying message feels less like:

"Here's why BIP-110 is technically incorrect."

and more like:

"The majority won't follow you, therefore you should stop."

That's very close to herd-morality thinking because truth becomes subordinate to social consensus.

You're positioning yourself as the spokesperson for "reality" itself: "I don't know how you can be so stupid as not to see reality"

You frame reality as:
Majority = legitimacy
Minority = delusion
Success = correctness
Failure = proof of being wrong

You view disagreement as evidence of irrationality rather than a difference in analysis. This is a common social dominance tactic.

You focus on anticipating where the crowd will be rather than evaluating the proposal itself. Your arguments are heavily centered on social adoption, credibility, majority support, and conformity to perceived reality.

Even if BIP-110 ultimately fails, that doesn't automatically mean the attempt was irrational, dishonest, or technically unsound. Movements fail all the time for political reasons.