Of course, "mandatory", only because Luke said so? Miners will simply ignore BIP-110, and use any version without it. The chain wouldn't split, if Knots wouldn't try to force the activation in the code. Sure, but you will need some miners, to push BIP-110 chain forward. Otherwise, your chain would halt. And then, you will have an option: to wait, when your network with 1% hashrate will produce one block per day, and gradually decrease LukeCoin's difficulty, or to change the code, to lower the difficulty, like BCH did. They don't control global rules, but they control their own coins. If you introduce rules, which could freeze their coins, just by calling it "a spam" for any subjective reasons, then they have no incentive to support your new rules. Which means, that they will just sell BIP-110 coins for BTCs (if BIP-110 chain will work at all, and if it will have any miners, pushing it forward). Sure, but Segwit didn't call old addresses "a spam", and didn't try to invalidate old coins by consensus rules. If someone had a chain of timelocked P2PK transactions, then it was valid before Segwit, and it is still valid now. On the other hand, it became invalid on altcoins like BCH, because of their replay protection. And they have even less incentive to support changes, which could be used to freeze their own coins, if future developers will just call it "a spam", for arbitrary reasons.
Of course, "mandatory", only because Luke said so? Miners will simply ignore BIP-110, and use any version without it. The chain wouldn't split, if Knots wouldn't try to force the activation in the code. Sure, but you will need some miners, to push BIP-110 chain forward. Otherwise, your chain would halt. And then, you will have an option: to wait, when your network with 1% hashrate will produce one block per day, and gradually decrease LukeCoin's difficulty, or to change the code, to lower the difficulty, like BCH did. They don't control global rules, but they control their own coins. If you introduce rules, which could freeze their coins, just by calling it "a spam" for any subjective reasons, then they have no incentive to support your new rules. Which means, that they will just sell BIP-110 coins for BTCs (if BIP-110 chain will work at all, and if it will have any miners, pushing it forward). Sure, but Segwit didn't call old addresses "a spam", and didn't try to invalidate old coins by consensus rules. If someone had a chain of timelocked P2PK transactions, then it was valid before Segwit, and it is still valid now. On the other hand, it became invalid on altcoins like BCH, because of their replay protection. And they have even less incentive to support changes, which could be used to freeze their own coins, if future developers will just call it "a spam", for arbitrary reasons.

Of course, "mandatory", only because Luke said so? Miners will simply ignore BIP-110, and use any version without it. The chain wouldn't split, if Knots wouldn't try to force the activation in the code. Sure, but you will need some miners, to push BIP-110 chain forward. Otherwise, your chain would halt. And then, you will have an option: to wait, when your network with 1% hashrate will produce one block per day, and gradually decrease LukeCoin's difficulty, or to change the code, to lower the difficulty, like BCH did. They don't control global rules, but they control their own coins. If you introduce rules, which could freeze their coins, just by calling it "a spam" for any subjective reasons, then they have no incentive to support your new rules. Which means, that they will just sell BIP-110 coins for BTCs (if BIP-110 chain will work at all, and if it will have any miners, pushing it forward). Sure, but Segwit didn't call old addresses "a spam", and didn't try to invalidate old coins by consensus rules. If someone had a chain of timelocked P2PK transactions, then it was valid before Segwit, and it is still valid now. On the other hand, it became invalid on altcoins like BCH, because of their replay protection. And they have even less incentive to support changes, which could be used to freeze their own coins, if future developers will just call it "a spam", for arbitrary reasons.

Of course, "mandatory", only because Luke said so? Miners will simply ignore BIP-110, and use any version without it. The chain wouldn't split, if Knots wouldn't try to force the activation in the code. Sure, but you will need some miners, to push BIP-110 chain forward. Otherwise, your chain would halt. And then, you will have an option: to wait, when your network with 1% hashrate will produce one block per day, and gradually decrease LukeCoin's difficulty, or to change the code, to lower the difficulty, like BCH did. They don't control global rules, but they control their own coins. If you introduce rules, which could freeze their coins, just by calling it "a spam" for any subjective reasons, then they have no incentive to support your new rules. Which means, that they will just sell BIP-110 coins for BTCs (if BIP-110 chain will work at all, and if it will have any miners, pushing it forward). Sure, but Segwit didn't call old addresses "a spam", and didn't try to invalidate old coins by consensus rules. If someone had a chain of timelocked P2PK transactions, then it was valid before Segwit, and it is still valid now. On the other hand, it became invalid on altcoins like BCH, because of their replay protection. And they have even less incentive to support changes, which could be used to freeze their own coins, if future developers will just call it "a spam", for arbitrary reasons.