So you have no qualms about low signaling rates so long as no more one deigns to create a URSF? if I propose a soft fork and signal my node for it, I expect exactly no one to care, acknowledge or respond. I would also know that there is no reason the miners should listen to a single node. It would then be rather silly for me to then speak as the “morally justified” and “technically correct” individual and suggest that in a decentralized system one active voice gets to trump hundreds of silent ones. Silence that is logically best understood as a vote for status quo, not actively supporting whimsical changes. I wish miners had changed their configs to signal URSF just to make it more clear, but failing to signal for BIP-110, something that would have affected their fee structure, should logically be best interpreted as a rejection, at least more so than a vote for. If you can’t admit that then I don’t think we can communicate effectively. Also, why should they change their mining config to signal when it would take work or misconfiguring it could cause them to make an invalid block? Again, it if were more contentious, node signaling had been closer to 50-50 and more plebs were on board I’m sure we would have had it

“In a decentralized network where nodes matter you need to …” That is the problem though. We don’t have to do anything - we CAN just ignore it if we want to. That’s how decentralization actually works. I don’t run Core. I didn’t run BIP 110. I run the node how I want and to expect that I have to play by a BIPs made up rules is insulting. In a decentralized network you don’t get to tell people what they have to do

Turns out, to stop the fork wars we just needed a human sacrifice

Someone must have used a Monkeys Paw

coldcardstr