I understand the idea that 20% voted yay, 0% nay, 80% abstained. I agree this is problematic.
But I can name many core node runners who publicly were against bip110 and thought it was a bad idea.
So, although there was no URSF, it is safe to say that there was absolutely resistance to bip110 by many nodes.
Accepting this pragmatic observation changes almost the entire premise of the arguments GrassFedBitcoin (nprofile…dmel) presents here.
And I say that even while continuously being convinced by him on many fronts. Kudos to him for his ability to convey his ideas and arguments in a very coherent, understandable way.
But I believe this particular premise is very important.
GrassFedBitcoin (nprofile…dmel) - just for arguments sake -
If for one minute you, for arguments sake, you agreed to the idea that nodes running core AND nodes running non-bip110 knots, were all AGAINST bip110, (granted they were operating in the dark while signalling nodes were operating publicly, granted, leave that out for one second) - pragmatically re-considering from this standpoint the amount of nodes in the voting room voting YAY vs the amount of nodes voting NAY.
How would that change your perspective / decision to move on to another project?
zaytun
npub1wn…845pr
2026-08-17 16:08:20 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…ptp7
Author Public Key
npub1wnw8s4eq2uwkhdvyue72m0w5u3zfhywuuk4nrunxeg3wac958n9st845prPublished at
2026-08-17 16:08:20 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "000081d697aee719d446acaf271c92062fc9aa188431206757ad68f96a3b2cb9",
"pubkey": "74dc785720571d6bb584e67cadbdd4e4449b91dce5ab31f266ca22eee0b43ccb",
"created_at": 1786982900,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"7f0fd320f990e2ae3f3eb2dd9fcfb0cc56c4e77f277cca40af2f71cf4fa18f51",
"wss://wot.utxo.one",
"root"
],
[
"p",
"314072c16fa9433e1374f62e5b02c8163946ed298a9cde3b1541513c29d19fff"
],
[
"p",
"74ffc51cc30150cf79b6cb316d3a15cf332ab29a38fec9eb484ab1551d6d1856"
],
[
"client",
"Wisp"
],
[
"nonce",
"75372",
"16"
]
],
"content": "I understand the idea that 20% voted yay, 0% nay, 80% abstained. I agree this is problematic.\n\nBut I can name many core node runners who publicly were against bip110 and thought it was a bad idea. \n\nSo, although there was no URSF, it is safe to say that there was absolutely resistance to bip110 by many nodes. \n\nAccepting this pragmatic observation changes almost the entire premise of the arguments nostr:nprofile1qqs8fl79rnpsz5x00xmvkvtd8g2u7ve2k2dr3lkfadyy4v24r4k3s4sh8dmel presents here. \n\nAnd I say that even while continuously being convinced by him on many fronts. Kudos to him for his ability to convey his ideas and arguments in a very coherent, understandable way. \n\nBut I believe this particular premise is very important. \n\nnostr:nprofile1qqs8fl79rnpsz5x00xmvkvtd8g2u7ve2k2dr3lkfadyy4v24r4k3s4sh8dmel - just for arguments sake - \nIf for one minute you, for arguments sake, you agreed to the idea that nodes running core AND nodes running non-bip110 knots, were all AGAINST bip110, (granted they were operating in the dark while signalling nodes were operating publicly, granted, leave that out for one second) - pragmatically re-considering from this standpoint the amount of nodes in the voting room voting YAY vs the amount of nodes voting NAY. \n\nHow would that change your perspective / decision to move on to another project?",
"sig": "2a2d626e079681617d74f6243c0adc3c47a94ef40865427a93dff83504a314495643e515ef9ab73d407cb03843c2d877503e79f9098b574676ab701bedb92d06"
}