Let's see, what is really written in the whitepaper: And now, BIP-110 changes that model from "you can transact, without a third party" into "you can transact, if Knots will not consider your transaction to be a spam". Which means, that BIP-110 introduces transaction blocking into consensus. And then, if you want to block any transaction, you can just: 1. Announce publicly, that it is a spam, that needs to be blocked. 2. Write a client, which will always enforce it, no matter how many miners will support it. 3. Fork into a minority chain, where a given transaction is blocked, and call everyone else a spammer. Because it is always possible to block more transactions, you can never be sure, if your transaction will be marked as a spam later, or not. Developers, who introduce protections, will never give you any examples of things, that can be safely used, and won't be blocked. So they can always block everything, using any excuse they want. You don't need to delete your keys, all that is needed is just any multisig, where you don't have all keys. Which means, that if there is any 2-of-2 multisig, and Alice wants BIP-110, while Bob rejects it, then coins can be lost, because one presigned transaction will be blocked, and another one will be confirmed. And then, warning users upfront won't help, no matter how early someone would know, that BIP-110 is there. By the way: it is funny, that BIP-110 enthusiasts only observe the on-chain UTXOs, and claim, that "no users are affected". If you close your eyes, then you won't see anything. I wonder, how they want to handle timelocked transactions: because you can never be sure, when exactly a given transaction was created. And if it is timelocked, then even if you know all keys, it may be not enough to migrate funds to anything else upfront, because that timelock will be always enforced by consensus rules, for example by opcodes like OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY.
Let's see, what is really written in the whitepaper: And now, BIP-110 changes that model from "you can transact, without a third party" into "you can transact, if Knots will not consider your transaction to be a spam". Which means, that BIP-110 introduces transaction blocking into consensus. And then, if you want to block any transaction, you can just: 1. Announce publicly, that it is a spam, that needs to be blocked. 2. Write a client, which will always enforce it, no matter how many miners will support it. 3. Fork into a minority chain, where a given transaction is blocked, and call everyone else a spammer. Because it is always possible to block more transactions, you can never be sure, if your transaction will be marked as a spam later, or not. Developers, who introduce protections, will never give you any examples of things, that can be safely used, and won't be blocked. So they can always block everything, using any excuse they want. You don't need to delete your keys, all that is needed is just any multisig, where you don't have all keys. Which means, that if there is any 2-of-2 multisig, and Alice wants BIP-110, while Bob rejects it, then coins can be lost, because one presigned transaction will be blocked, and another one will be confirmed. And then, warning users upfront won't help, no matter how early someone would know, that BIP-110 is there. By the way: it is funny, that BIP-110 enthusiasts only observe the on-chain UTXOs, and claim, that "no users are affected". If you close your eyes, then you won't see anything. I wonder, how they want to handle timelocked transactions: because you can never be sure, when exactly a given transaction was created. And if it is timelocked, then even if you know all keys, it may be not enough to migrate funds to anything else upfront, because that timelock will be always enforced by consensus rules, for example by opcodes like OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY.

Let's see, what is really written in the whitepaper: And now, BIP-110 changes that model from "you can transact, without a third party" into "you can transact, if Knots will not consider your transaction to be a spam". Which means, that BIP-110 introduces transaction blocking into consensus. And then, if you want to block any transaction, you can just: 1. Announce publicly, that it is a spam, that needs to be blocked. 2. Write a client, which will always enforce it, no matter how many miners will support it. 3. Fork into a minority chain, where a given transaction is blocked, and call everyone else a spammer. Because it is always possible to block more transactions, you can never be sure, if your transaction will be marked as a spam later, or not. Developers, who introduce protections, will never give you any examples of things, that can be safely used, and won't be blocked. So they can always block everything, using any excuse they want. You don't need to delete your keys, all that is needed is just any multisig, where you don't have all keys. Which means, that if there is any 2-of-2 multisig, and Alice wants BIP-110, while Bob rejects it, then coins can be lost, because one presigned transaction will be blocked, and another one will be confirmed. And then, warning users upfront won't help, no matter how early someone would know, that BIP-110 is there. By the way: it is funny, that BIP-110 enthusiasts only observe the on-chain UTXOs, and claim, that "no users are affected". If you close your eyes, then you won't see anything. I wonder, how they want to handle timelocked transactions: because you can never be sure, when exactly a given transaction was created. And if it is timelocked, then even if you know all keys, it may be not enough to migrate funds to anything else upfront, because that timelock will be always enforced by consensus rules, for example by opcodes like OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY.

Let's see, what is really written in the whitepaper: And now, BIP-110 changes that model from "you can transact, without a third party" into "you can transact, if Knots will not consider your transaction to be a spam". Which means, that BIP-110 introduces transaction blocking into consensus. And then, if you want to block any transaction, you can just: 1. Announce publicly, that it is a spam, that needs to be blocked. 2. Write a client, which will always enforce it, no matter how many miners will support it. 3. Fork into a minority chain, where a given transaction is blocked, and call everyone else a spammer. Because it is always possible to block more transactions, you can never be sure, if your transaction will be marked as a spam later, or not. Developers, who introduce protections, will never give you any examples of things, that can be safely used, and won't be blocked. So they can always block everything, using any excuse they want. You don't need to delete your keys, all that is needed is just any multisig, where you don't have all keys. Which means, that if there is any 2-of-2 multisig, and Alice wants BIP-110, while Bob rejects it, then coins can be lost, because one presigned transaction will be blocked, and another one will be confirmed. And then, warning users upfront won't help, no matter how early someone would know, that BIP-110 is there. By the way: it is funny, that BIP-110 enthusiasts only observe the on-chain UTXOs, and claim, that "no users are affected". If you close your eyes, then you won't see anything. I wonder, how they want to handle timelocked transactions: because you can never be sure, when exactly a given transaction was created. And if it is timelocked, then even if you know all keys, it may be not enough to migrate funds to anything else upfront, because that timelock will be always enforced by consensus rules, for example by opcodes like OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY.