There is a whole thread of technical objections on the mailing list, and even more on your pull request
None of these objections are technical, reasonable, and still applicable to the latest version of BIP-110.
the BIP does not accomplish its stated objective since the restrictions are easily bypassed by people who are looking to insert data
Oh? Please point me to where the BIP states that its objective is to prevent all data insertion. In fact, you will not find such a statement since BIP-110’s stated objective is explicitly not to stop all data insertion (See “Won’t spammers just spread their data over multiple fields?” https://github[.]com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0110.mediawiki#specification-nuance (obfuscating this link since this forum does not seem to allow links to Github)).
it ends up doing nothing but cause disruption and uncertainty for legitimate usage - i.e., people who actually program their money.
It does no such thing. No active use cases are disrupted except spam use cases.
But fact remains that nodes can be easily spun up in large numbers at little cost, especially in the case of onion nodes, so all claims of community support that are backed by node counts must be taken with a massive dump truck of salt.
I have not claimed otherwise. I merely stated that node counts should not count for nothing, which I believe we agree on. Miner signaling is ramping up as well, so it seems wise for the ecosystem to prepare for activation now.
Accusing people of forging data to dispute a claim is not a reasonable way to garner buy-in for your proposal.
Criticizing Bitcoiners for expressing skepticism rather than just taking your word for it, especially when your word goes against all credible sources, is a surefire way to increase their skepticism.
Widespread community consensus is required for sure, but if a small minority of nodes insist on following rules that are not enforced by a majority of miners, the best they can hope for is that they’ll end up on a minority chain, as opposed to a dead one.
If this were true, BIP-148 would have failed. We can assume that since it succeeded, the same will happen with BIP-110.