Yet another reason why Luke is wrong:

Luke claims that for any node to *wait* to upgrade to the latest version, is a "failure of Bitcoin".

And -- to *wait* to upgrade to the latest soft fork, is a colossal failure, and "regression to SPV".

However:

1) every node is a full node of itself, but it is also equal to "SPV mode" of an infinity of closely-related protocols. These may not be used by anyone, but they still exist theoretically.

For example, Bitcoin Core v 25 is a full node of itself, but an SPV node of a hypothetical soft fork (of 25) where we always reject a block if the last 4 bytes are 1234 + the versionbits end in 5678

2) Every full node, is **using SPV** on the question: will this block be orphaned ? There is NO way to KNOW the answer to that question using just your node. The ONLY source of illumination, on this question, is to do what spv nodes do: wait for more block headers to roll in, count them, and hope for the best.

So: the "heaviest chain" rule -- is a rule that is only enforced at SPV level. Even the full nodes only enforce it at SPV security.

And so -- Luke's nightmare scenario, --which he aims to prevent via his theory that we must all run the latest version, etc-- that bad outcome is actually the one we are all permanently stuck in, forever. It is inexorably linked to proof-of-work itself.