I’m not sure I follow your argument, aren’t you saying exactly that it’s “so hard” to change the consensus of Bitcoin (failed bip110) that the solution is the need to start a new coin? (That’s the solution right?) if so, then why would it be any easier for fink et al, so change Bitcoin (for the worse?), and not cause a fork?
If they wanted to make a change to make Bitcoin worse they’d have to simultaneously make miners mine the chain somehow by making the upgrade more economically favourable. I don’t think op_return was ever that, because op_return is a policy change, you can simply change it in your settings back to the old default. No?
Also if your theory is true can’t fink et al, get in on your new coin “early” by quite easily buying and maintaining abundant cheap hash etc like how is this new chain in any way secure and harder to co-opt and change?
Anyways still trying to figure this out.
Also how could they stop no-kyc coins from moving? Miners will always want utxos to move. Miners just head off to some “remote island” use cheap renewables, and mine whatever utxos they want.
