> I can't stress enough the fact that doing a URSF here is highly irresponsible This 100%! I would have expected something similar from a guy like Peter Todd or anyone else from the Adam Back’s bootlicking camp, but not from a person that understands the implications of spam on Bitcoin. His motivation is pretty weak too. BIP110 doesn’t do destructive stuff with miniscript. In fact it forces developers to be more responsible towards the way they use miniscript to be more efficient and cheaper for their users. Instead this URSF will only create additional chaos and confusion.

> if BIP110 activates on August/September with less than 55% of miners, your URSF won't? Depends. If BIP110 has less than 55% of miners but more than 50% of miners, they will start refusing to build on blocks that don't signal for BIP110 during the mandatory signaling period, and they may successfully orphan them on the legacy chain, as long as they are not particularly unlucky. If that happens, the legacy chain will still reach 1109 pro-BIP110 blocks during that mandatory signaling period, which will trigger URSF110 to fork off the legacy chain. BIP110 wins in that case. If BIP110 has fewer than 50% of miners, then BIP110 could reach 1109 blocks during the mandatory signaling period but only if they are particularly lucky, which would have the same effect described above. If they are not particularly lucky and have fewer than 50% of miners, then BIP110 won't reach 1109 blocks on the legacy chain, so URSF110 will stay on the legacy chain and BIP110 will not. > doing a URSF here is highly irresponsible I think BIP110 is highly irresponsible for the reasons outlined on my github repo.