Natestr on Nostr: nprofile1q…cne30 can you please help me understand how not accepting bip-110 is the ...

nprofile1qqs2tj3d7h36yeuhenrl29h9tcpjhjjekcwqn9ufcnylzcgu43gs37qpzamhxue69uhhv6t5daezumn0wd68yvfwvdhk6tcpr9mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuer9demx2u3wwdcxzcm99uq3wamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwwpexjmtpdshxuet59uycne30 (nprofile…ne30) can you please help me understand how not accepting bip-110 is the cause of the hardfork?

Isn't a BIP a proposal to the existing implementation? If so the only way for not accepting the BIP to cause a hard fork is if someone else decided to hard fork with the BIP.

Or the same person wrote the proposal purposely to kick in anyway. But either way the "hardfork" is due to the action of the party initiating the BIP, not those whose choose to ignore/decline the BIP.

This sounds disturbingly like "Your inability to disprove God's existence is proof of God's existence."

Help me understand.

quoting
nevent1q…fcmq

Removing rules is a hardfork.

That includes scheduled rules like subsidy halvings, and yes, even BIP110.

Rejecting BIP110 is a contentious hardfork attempt.
And unlike softforks, hardforks need consensus to succeed.
There is no consensus on rejecting BIP110.