In theory, competing clients is probably the right path forward. It's a giant task but hopefully libbitcoinkernel will be able to separate consensus from the #Bitcoin Core client.
https://github.com/orgs/bitcoin/projects/3

The big difference is that Core devs are not willy nilly changing consensus while team BIP-110 is attempting to via what I would consider a hostile takeover. The vast majority of node runners, and basically no miners, are not actively signalling their approval of this change.

I absolutely agree with you and I think most people that are against BIP-110 do as well. In spirit, it would be ideal if there were no monkey jpegs on #Bitcoin.

One of the areas where the BIP-110 argument fails for me is that it assumes that everything will work correctly and there will be no unintended consequences of their soft fork despite a tiny developer team. Making changes to Bitcoin is always a risk. To me, the risk/reward calculation is not there to justify this change. It has been demonstrated several times that spammers will run out of money. Today (and for months prior) I can send transactions for next to nothing.

I also think this change succeeding would set a terrible precidend that would be exploited by governments. Two crazy guys and a loud minority of social media keyboard warriors shouldn't be able to change Bitcoin. If they can, I will probably exit Bitcoin entirely as that would demonstrate to me that Bitcoin could easily be destroyed by a motivated attacker.

Technically, from a consensus standpoint, the limit for OP_RETURN is currently only capped by the total block size (so up to 4 MB) and Core 30 nodes will relay 100 kb OP_RETURNS (relay not the same as consensus). BIP-110 limits OP_RETURN to 83 bytes. I'm not sure if you are ignorant, attempting to waste my time, or have different definitions of words than everyone else (kind of like Luke Dashjr). Either way it is pointless to continue this conversation. You will see that I am right in around 45 days, smart guy.

This is lengthy but should give you a one stop shop:
blog.lopp.net/a-laymans-guide-to-bip-110/

Some of the rational that I see from the BIP-110 crowd on why their fork will succeed is absolutely mind boggling. BIP-110 people seem to have spent a total of zero hours learning about how #Bitcoin actually functions and instead spend all day on social media regurgitating nonsense from other nontechnical goofballs and bots.

Good Lord.

"Soft forks that are not actively opposed with a URSF are likely to succeed because they conform with all of the consensus rules of the previous versions."

So what you are telling me is that after mandatory activation (after BIP-9 activation fails) BIP-110 enforcing nodes will accept blocks with transactions that include OP_RETURNs of greater than 83 bytes? I promise you, there will be many in the first block after BIP-110 nodes start enforcing their new rules and if the BIP-110 software is written correctly (big if), those nodes will reject blocks that contain transactions with large OP_RETURNs. BIP-110 nodes will end up on their own chain with almost no hash power.

You will see smart guy.

All of those nodes (many of them not real) can happily stay on the Bitcoin Cashjr chain with one block a day until they capitulate and come back to the real #Bitcoin.

I think your "Occam's razor" take is correct.

I was responding to:
"While it is more likely that people running Core will need to quickly switch over to avoid forking themselves off the network, the inverse is also possible."

Believing that BIP-110 is more likely than not to become active on the most proof of work chain is delusional to a degree that I can never take them seriously again.

You are nutty. There is 1% of the network at best that support BIP-110.

The other thing to consider:
If #Bitcoin consensus rules can be altered by a mentally ill developer, an obvious spook, and a tiny vocal minority of non-technical social media keyboard warriors, would you really want to own it anyway? I wouldn't!

If you think BIP-110 is "more likely to succeed" you are living in a fantasy world. Sorry, that is the reality.

How long will miners/users stay on a chain that is mining a block a day? My guess is a day or two.