I’ve read the bip. I’m sure you are aware of the motte-and-bailey fallacy, but for those who are not I’ll explain it here. It’s a debating style where you assert an aggressive position, and then fall back to a somewhat more defensible position when the aggressive one isn’t working, and purposely conflate the two or switch back and forth when convenient. Many leaders of this movement, and by association their followers, have been saying that Bitcoin is under major attack by spam, that it is vulnerable to illegal images, that bitcoin will fail without this fork, that nodes will become unwieldy, or that this fork is absolutely going to happen. That in aggregate is the aggressive position, the bailey. And keep in mind this is path dependent; it emerged from the filter movement that spent years trying to stop spam. I know people who have received death threats for not supporting this fork. You should see my inbox or notifications of people talking about how this is the most existential thing in bitcoin, or that it’ll stop spam or csam and preserve bitcoin as money. That’s what many people assert. And when I say, “well no, it doesn’t do that, I don’t consider this an emergency, and even if it was an emergency I wouldn’t view this as anywhere near being a solution for the emergency, but I’m open to discussions on spam management for the longer run.” Then people respond by saying “look at the bip, it’s so mild, it admits how limited it is for spam, it’s not really about spam, etc” That’s the semi-defensible position to fall back to, the motte. But then great, it’s not an emergency. In fact, the reason I have not written about the bip on my main timeline or in an article (either for or against), is because I read it and it hasn’t reached my top ten things to focus on. By default I don’t support forks under a year old unless I consider them true emergencies, so that they have time for proper review. But for those who want to try for a contested fork, I support their right to do so. 👍