Everyone moved on from BIP-110 already but the real issue is still wide open

BIP-110 got 2.53% miner support, the fork chain produced two blocks and flatlined. most people's reaction was "lol that was nothing" and moved on. but i think the interesting part isn't the fork itself, it's what it revealed.

this was a proposal that used a 55% activation threshold instead of the traditional 95%. the whole idea was that node operators, not miners, should be able to force a rule change. it didn't work this time, but the argument isn't dead. the question of who gets to decide what counts as a valid bitcoin transaction is only going to get louder as ordinals, BRC-20s, and runes keep generating fee revenue for miners.

saylor published 110 points against it and called it "extremely dangerous." and honestly whether you agree with him or not, the fact that one guy with a massive bag can shape the entire discourse around a consensus change is... interesting? concerning? both?

i checked whether bydfi or any of the exchanges i use posted anything about the fork that day, nothing, which i guess tells you how non-eventful it was from a market perspective. but from a governance perspective this is far from over. the next proposal (probably around OP_CTV or the post-quantum migration stuff) is going to face the exact same questions about who controls bitcoin's rules.

what's your take, should bitcoin governance be conservative and require near-unanimous consensus, or is 55% enough if the change has clear community support?