Fair critique on circularity — worth addressing directly.
The criteria weren't reverse-engineered to fail BIP-110. The framework scores Taproot at 18/20 explicitly and notes that SegWit would have passed at a high score. The methodology applies to any consensus or relay proposal — score a hypothetical block size increase against it, score the next softfork that comes through. If you think specific criteria are wrong, name them and we can discuss the criterion, not the score.
Two corrections on your facts:
BIP-110 was drafted as a soft fork. A consensus change. The paper treats it that way because the BIP itself does — that's why it has an activation threshold, a signaling mechanism, and a sunset clause. None of those exist for pure relay policy. "It's just standardness" is a framing some proponents use to make the proposal sound less consequential; the BIP text doesn't support it.
Opt-in mitigates accidental activation. The objection isn't that anyone is forced to activate. It's that bundling consensus-altering activation code into binaries distributed through normal update channels — alongside stable releases, with no risk disclosure at the point of selection — shifts coordination costs in a way the framework flags. That's spelled out in the activation safety section.
On "the client controlled by developers who permitted Ordinals" — Core didn't author ordinals. Ordinals exploited witness data that segwit made cheaper in 2017, years before inscriptions existed. You can be against ordinals (I am, my node filters them at the relay layer right now) without conflating two unrelated technical histories.
The "you took a side" framing assumes neutrality means having no conclusions. That's not what the framework claims. It claims the method is reproducible — anyone can score any proposal against the same 20 criteria and show their work. The framework's authority derives from its usefulness, not from its conclusions. If you score BIP-110 differently, post your scoring. That's the actual test.
Asaf Fulks
npub1ze…4n8ys
2026-05-17 06:13:14 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…l4cv
Author Public Key
npub1zete4tgtqyfns5zavpa882ej9tt2gfhhd97rursq0crztzt2hyhsk4n8ysPublished at
2026-05-17 06:13:14 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "8b317e6030d3d1f58f01d1c77b151379183707bfbbfe89269ac98b42a45c8c4d",
"pubkey": "16579aad0b011338505d607a73ab322ad6a426f7697c3e0e007e0625896ab92f",
"created_at": 1778998394,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"e6f1d8ebb9c16ca6adf105628da438a0c9e3c7b99af703292ea637fb3bfe5bbf",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"eeb89ce5adec1cb5ee302dfeabe5cf00cf182ae51872b2cdb22258cb97dd7cc7",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"16579aad0b011338505d607a73ab322ad6a426f7697c3e0e007e0625896ab92f",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"p",
"1e2ab63d97d9383b58de2eab468804e3f4f4a61f0197b2d880f3091b83dbf5e0"
],
[
"r",
"wss://relay.damus.io/"
],
[
"r",
"wss://nostr-pub.wellorder.net/"
],
[
"r",
"wss://offchain.pub/"
],
[
"r",
"wss://profiles.nostr1.com/"
],
[
"r",
"wss://nos.lol/"
],
[
"r",
"wss://eden.nostr.land/"
],
[
"client",
"Primal Web"
]
],
"content": "Fair critique on circularity — worth addressing directly.\n\nThe criteria weren't reverse-engineered to fail BIP-110. The framework scores Taproot at 18/20 explicitly and notes that SegWit would have passed at a high score. The methodology applies to any consensus or relay proposal — score a hypothetical block size increase against it, score the next softfork that comes through. If you think specific criteria are wrong, name them and we can discuss the criterion, not the score.\n\nTwo corrections on your facts:\n\nBIP-110 was drafted as a soft fork. A consensus change. The paper treats it that way because the BIP itself does — that's why it has an activation threshold, a signaling mechanism, and a sunset clause. None of those exist for pure relay policy. \"It's just standardness\" is a framing some proponents use to make the proposal sound less consequential; the BIP text doesn't support it.\n\nOpt-in mitigates accidental activation. The objection isn't that anyone is forced to activate. It's that bundling consensus-altering activation code into binaries distributed through normal update channels — alongside stable releases, with no risk disclosure at the point of selection — shifts coordination costs in a way the framework flags. That's spelled out in the activation safety section.\n\nOn \"the client controlled by developers who permitted Ordinals\" — Core didn't author ordinals. Ordinals exploited witness data that segwit made cheaper in 2017, years before inscriptions existed. You can be against ordinals (I am, my node filters them at the relay layer right now) without conflating two unrelated technical histories.\n\nThe \"you took a side\" framing assumes neutrality means having no conclusions. That's not what the framework claims. It claims the method is reproducible — anyone can score any proposal against the same 20 criteria and show their work. The framework's authority derives from its usefulness, not from its conclusions. If you score BIP-110 differently, post your scoring. That's the actual test.",
"sig": "25451e6898ceddccae38e5409ea660b1d57182fdcafd9a98e1eddddf8d1fd1a2783d96a92ea32b2b9790b5d0d82276adcc8653a314f26bf3fe5e46bfc0d26992"
}