The comparison makes sense to me. I can be confident on something without putting money on the line, and nothing is 100% certain, that’s what I wanted to explain. True, in an ideal “frictionless” situation bip-110 proposes a temporary softfork. But still, the money is already on the line, in the chain, and time will tell. Gambling does not show conviction or real intention. And opinions should not be discredited because there is no money behind them. (imo)

Well, as you say in your own blogpost there is indeed a high probability of chainsplitting. Maybe you like “spewing nonsense” on your blog? With no replay protection for transactions with spam, of course, as they’re the target of the filter. But I don’t see why a transaction that does not use any known exploit for data storage couldn’t be in both chains in the case of a split.