This is an overly terse follow-up from my previous cut off boost. Whichever way BIP110 is eventually resolved, the risk of a minority forcing their opinion on Bitcoin doesn’t change. Consider: that risk exists today. It’s what BIP110 is trying to exploit. The opposition to BIP110 is to not change anything. If nothing changes then that risk still has to exist. Meanwhile I continue to run BIP110 because I think it does mitigate some risks to Bitcoin (although not that one). We can quibble about how big those risks are.

I said earlier that this is a function of Nakamoto consensus. It’s actually a function of complex systems. Taleb wrote about this in his book Skin in the Game. Here's the relevant chapter discussing it: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15

https://fountain.fm/episode/Oz8GZDAxHzqozajATIMf

Testing

This is compelling. Making me rethink my running bip110.

One thing that's refreshing: this note is talking about the problem rather than questioning the intention of the people. If living under a government has taught us anything it's that intentions rarely match outcomes.

So it's nice that this note only talks about the problem without impugning the people.