<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>nobody (npub1ge…4qqp7)</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1gek0f5s300jzqg4av4e7l4hfejrrkhzf8km2pkuquhfmja6gwdcqw4qqp7</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>I see four groups: &#xA;&#xA;BIP-110 camp: wants to restore data limits by force: a consensus soft-fork via UASF, enforced whether or not miners agree.&#xA;&#xA;Core / Chaincode: wants no arbiter. relay policy shouldn’t judge use cases, so let the fee market decide and remove the lever entirely.&#xA;&#xA;Back / Saylor / institutional: wants immutability. Predictable, coercion-proof rules in both directions, because certainty is the store-of-value pitch.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Ordinals / Runes / L2s: wants the data: unrestricted block space, because their businesses run on it.&#xA;&#xA;I feel most aligned with the silent group 5: &#xA;I want the “exit right”: restraint without coercion, decentralization without an arbiter, money-focus lived, not imposed. Guard the ability to leave, not the purity of the chain.&#xA;&#xA;I know what Bitcoin means to me and why I am in this game. As long as the game is aligned with my reasons I will be a part of it. If it strays away I will have no issues leaving it.</html></oembed>