Patrick Salvation $DOG (Data Orientation Gateway)

When you go down the BIP 110 rabbit hole, you realize it’s not just a debate about technical issues or base layer consensus. It’s also a fascinating study in psychology, persuasion, tribalism, and human behavior. The technical side is important, but so are the social dynamics that emerge when a community becomes deeply divided. One of the most interesting patterns I’ve observed is the “No True Scotsman fallacy” The argument becomes: “Plebs with integrity support BIP 110.” But the moment you point to a pleb with integrity who opposes it, the definition quietly changes: “Then they weren’t a real pleb of integrity.” The claim becomes impossible to falsify because the category is continually redefined. Layered on top of that are several other psychological mechanisms. Ad hominem / poisoning the well: opponents are pre-labeled as “grifters,” “suitcoiners,” or other dismissive terms so their arguments can be discounted before they’re even heard. The Kafkatrap: disagreement itself becomes evidence of guilt. If opposing BIP 110 is taken as proof that you’re compromised or acting in bad faith, then there is no possible way for an honest dissenter to defend themselves. The accusation becomes unfalsifiable. In-group vs. out-group identity framing: as demonstrated in Henri Tajfel’s social identity experiments, people naturally favor members of their perceived group even when the groups themselves are arbitrary. Once a technical proposal becomes a tribal identity marker, many people stop evaluating the merits of the proposal and instead defend the identity attached to it. History has shown this pattern many times. During the French Revolution, Robespierre equated virtue with support for the Revolution. Opposing the Terror became evidence that you opposed virtue itself, and eventually the purity spiral consumed many of its own architects. During McCarthyism, questioning the investigations was often portrayed as evidence of communist sympathies. Doubt itself became suspicious. In the Soviet Union, dissenters were labeled “enemies of the people.” Some were even diagnosed with so-called sluggish schizophrenia because the ideology assumed that only an irrational person could oppose the system. During Mao’s Cultural Revolution, labels such as “capitalist roader” functioned as social disqualifiers. Once the label was applied, arguments no longer needed to be answered. Even in modern politics, phrases like “real Americans” or “true patriots” follow the same pattern: defining membership in the virtuous in-group so that agreement becomes the admission ticket. What I find most interesting is that these dynamics tend to emerge when debates shift away from evidence and toward identity. The discussion stops being “Is this proposal good for Bitcoin?” and becomes “Are you one of us?” Whether someone supports or opposes BIP 110 is ultimately their decision. But studying this debate has taught me something beyond Bitcoin’s technical architecture. It has shown me how quickly intelligent communities can fall into tribal thinking, identity protection, and purity tests.

A note to the people who are anti-spam (me) and pro-filtering (you) You are being deceived by state actors trying to destroy Bitcoin properties VIA law just like Craig Wright did! They will soon realize that the law angle isn't going to work. They will change their tactics to 'morals.' Don't fall for the nonsense. Bitcoin by design is censorship-resistant digital scarcity. Accept it. After you're done accepting it start stacking it into your self-custodial wallet.