Yes. As Spinoza says: "If men were able to exercise complete control over all their circumstances, or if continuous good fortune were always their lot, they would never be prey to superstition."

"This is going to be my last post about BIP-110."

You have become powerless and resentful, so you seek villains to blame: Core developers, the CIA, BIP-110 supporters, corrupt actors everywhere.

You care less about Bitcoin and more about the emotional satisfaction of having someone to blame and to be proven right. What other solutions do you have besides promising to return and mock BIP-110 supporters?

Nowhere do you say what should be built, improved, or created. Your entire mindset is reactive and weak.

The “Conatus”, derived from the Latin word for “survival drive”, is constantly seeking the next thing to keep you running along on the hamster wheel of life.

"You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist." - Nietzsche

I don't think you need them, and if you wanted them for "longevity" then no, they will not prevent death... that's the purpose of life, so don't try and fight it.

Liar

My point:

Argument: "Most people won't adopt it, therefore don't support it."

Why should the anticipated opinion of the majority determine my judgment?

If you believe BIP-110 is beneficial for Bitcoin, then its current popularity is a separate question from its merit.

Allowing your convictions to be determined by expected social acceptance is precisely how herd morality operates.

Yes, the numbers are against us. So what? If we believe this is the right direction, we should fight for it and discover whether the resistance can be overcome. The possibility of failure is not itself an argument against action.

At some point:
- Bitcoin itself was a tiny minority.
- The blocksize wars began with minorities on both sides.
- Every major philosophical, political, religious, or scientific shift started with people who lacked majority support.

If the standard is: "Do not pursue anything unless a majority already supports it," then no new majority can ever emerge.

The argument becomes circular:
You need majority support before you may seek majority support.

Support it because you judge it to be right, not because you expect it to win.

You miss my point

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.

Running Bip-110 and saving this message.