Which is exactly why we have Proof of Work in the first place. If you believe, that counting nodes can be used instead, to measure support for some BIPs, to activate different rules, and do things like that, then it is strictly incompatible with the whitepaper, which explains, why you need Proof of Work to decide about consensus changes. Of course, users can always run any software they want. But if you believe, that by having 1% hashrate support, it is enough to deploy something in practice, then it is more likely than not, that you will land on an altcoin. Because then, the rest of the community will produce blocks as usual, without BIP-110 signalling. And then, if your client will reject the heaviest chain, then it is your problem, if you accept the risk of 51% attacks. By the way: it would be funny, if BIP-110 chain will be attacked in the same way, as Luke attacked other altcoins in the past. People could then say, that it is "A Taste of Your Own Medicine". And it is exactly the reason, why many altcoins, who didn't reach hashrate majority for their ideas and improvements, simply switched Proof of Work algorithm from double SHA-256 to something else. It was the only way to avoid 51% attacks from stronger chains. And if Knots will unconditionally activate BIP-110 through "mandatory signalling", without getting hashrate majority, then it will simply face the same problems. And then, they started supporting it, when it turned out, that if they produce blocks bigger than 1 MB, then they will land on an altcoin called BCH instead (or some other altcoins, which are now dead).
Which is exactly why we have Proof of Work in the first place. If you believe, that counting nodes can be used instead, to measure support for some BIPs, to activate different rules, and do things like that, then it is strictly incompatible with the whitepaper, which explains, why you need Proof of Work to decide about consensus changes. Of course, users can always run any software they want. But if you believe, that by having 1% hashrate support, it is enough to deploy something in practice, then it is more likely than not, that you will land on an altcoin. Because then, the rest of the community will produce blocks as usual, without BIP-110 signalling. And then, if your client will reject the heaviest chain, then it is your problem, if you accept the risk of 51% attacks. By the way: it would be funny, if BIP-110 chain will be attacked in the same way, as Luke attacked other altcoins in the past. People could then say, that it is "A Taste of Your Own Medicine". And it is exactly the reason, why many altcoins, who didn't reach hashrate majority for their ideas and improvements, simply switched Proof of Work algorithm from double SHA-256 to something else. It was the only way to avoid 51% attacks from stronger chains. And if Knots will unconditionally activate BIP-110 through "mandatory signalling", without getting hashrate majority, then it will simply face the same problems. And then, they started supporting it, when it turned out, that if they produce blocks bigger than 1 MB, then they will land on an altcoin called BCH instead (or some other altcoins, which are now dead).

Which is exactly why we have Proof of Work in the first place. If you believe, that counting nodes can be used instead, to measure support for some BIPs, to activate different rules, and do things like that, then it is strictly incompatible with the whitepaper, which explains, why you need Proof of Work to decide about consensus changes. Of course, users can always run any software they want. But if you believe, that by having 1% hashrate support, it is enough to deploy something in practice, then it is more likely than not, that you will land on an altcoin. Because then, the rest of the community will produce blocks as usual, without BIP-110 signalling. And then, if your client will reject the heaviest chain, then it is your problem, if you accept the risk of 51% attacks. By the way: it would be funny, if BIP-110 chain will be attacked in the same way, as Luke attacked other altcoins in the past. People could then say, that it is "A Taste of Your Own Medicine". And it is exactly the reason, why many altcoins, who didn't reach hashrate majority for their ideas and improvements, simply switched Proof of Work algorithm from double SHA-256 to something else. It was the only way to avoid 51% attacks from stronger chains. And if Knots will unconditionally activate BIP-110 through "mandatory signalling", without getting hashrate majority, then it will simply face the same problems. And then, they started supporting it, when it turned out, that if they produce blocks bigger than 1 MB, then they will land on an altcoin called BCH instead (or some other altcoins, which are now dead).

Which is exactly why we have Proof of Work in the first place. If you believe, that counting nodes can be used instead, to measure support for some BIPs, to activate different rules, and do things like that, then it is strictly incompatible with the whitepaper, which explains, why you need Proof of Work to decide about consensus changes. Of course, users can always run any software they want. But if you believe, that by having 1% hashrate support, it is enough to deploy something in practice, then it is more likely than not, that you will land on an altcoin. Because then, the rest of the community will produce blocks as usual, without BIP-110 signalling. And then, if your client will reject the heaviest chain, then it is your problem, if you accept the risk of 51% attacks. By the way: it would be funny, if BIP-110 chain will be attacked in the same way, as Luke attacked other altcoins in the past. People could then say, that it is "A Taste of Your Own Medicine". And it is exactly the reason, why many altcoins, who didn't reach hashrate majority for their ideas and improvements, simply switched Proof of Work algorithm from double SHA-256 to something else. It was the only way to avoid 51% attacks from stronger chains. And if Knots will unconditionally activate BIP-110 through "mandatory signalling", without getting hashrate majority, then it will simply face the same problems. And then, they started supporting it, when it turned out, that if they produce blocks bigger than 1 MB, then they will land on an altcoin called BCH instead (or some other altcoins, which are now dead).