This is just so tiresome. 🚫 False Framing It is so dishonest to frame the debate as:
“Monetary network” (BIP 110) vs “non-monetary / anything-goes network” (Core). This is false. 
Bitcoin is the monetary network, Core is the reference implementation, Knots is a fork and BIP 110 is a treasure trove of bad ideas. Core simply refuses to go full authoritarian and use consensus rules to police what people put in their transactions. You know, that pesky permissionless and censorship-resistance stuff. Fees already do the filtering, as the market, not pseudo-moral soft forks, enforce monetary priority. BIP 110 is not “keeping Bitcoin monetary.”It is trying to enforce a narrower, ideological definition of ‘money’ by retroactively freezing UTXOs and breaking L2 tools. And, unlike Knots/BIP 110, Core refuses to effectively cripple Bitcoin’s ability to scale in a failed attempt to stop what cannot be prevented. BIP 110 ensures that Bitcoin cannot and will not be money, but rather remain a speculative asset and toy that the vast majority of the planet will never use as a medium of exchange or unit of account. 🚫 Misrepresentation of “voting” with nodes Running a BIP 110 node is not a vote. Bitcoin is not a democracy. Nodes validate, miners produce blocks, the economic majority (users, exchanges, businesses, and ultimately hashrate) decides what chain survives. BIP 110 has 0% miner signaling. Framing a 20–25% node minority as “the people voting” is spin at best. 🚫 Straw-man of Core’s position Core does not advocate for “generalized data storage”. Core advocates for neutrality plus economic incentives. Non-monetary use is allowed only if it pays full fees. That is the opposite of “anything goes.” 🚫Manipulative Gaslighting Implying that anyone who doesn’t run BIP 110 is voting against Bitcoin being money is laughable. You can believe Bitcoin should be money and believe that a misguided moral soft fork, while retroactively freezings utxos is the wrong tool to achieve it. ✅ Bottom line BIP 110 supporters are not defending a “monetary network”. They are crippling Bitcoin’s ability to win while simultaneously demanding a prescriptive, purity-enforced network enforced by a minority UASF. Core is defending the actual monetary network. One where fees, not ideology, decide what survives. The dichotomy presented below is fake. The real choice is economics vs. moral authoritarianism. That’s the real framing they don’t want you to see.