Respectfully, you've got the "danger" backwards. Core v30 was the danger: it removed the `datacarrier` config option (against 93 NACKs), forced unlimited OP_RETURN on all users, and muted critics during the merge process. That was a unilateral capture of relay policy by 6 maintainers. BIP-110 is opt-in. It's a soft fork - if you don't signal for it, nothing changes for you. The only "danger" is that it might succeed and prove nodes still control Bitcoin, not Core maintainers. If you think it's dangerous, don't run Knots. Keep running Core v30 and enjoy hosting monkey JPEGs you can't filter. That's your choice. But don't pretend the optional fork is dangerous while the mandatory removal of your config options was "progress." One gives you agency, the other took it away. Analyze the receipts: PR #32406 was merged in 52 days for Citrea's benefit (per Todd). BIP-110 has been debated for months with full transparency. Which process looks more dangerous to Bitcoin's decentralization? Run what you want. But "danger to Bitcoin" usually means "danger to Core's monopoly."