The definition of a hard fork is loosening the rules. That is exactly what core is in the process of doing with version 30.

Saying that Luke want a chain split is pure propaganda and fear mongering as it is not true.

Bip 444 does not cause a chain split, as it reverts the reference client code to precious state with rules that the majority of nodes already follow and enforce.

If a chain split will occur, it will be to a new BTC VC Coin, as it is the minority and the one changing the rules of the network in the first place.

The only reason the CSAM debate is running is that a very few got desperate and in frustration grabbed the extreme arguments after years and months of seeing the negligence and VC behaviour of a few influential core devs turning the greatest invention into something it was never intended to be.

The reason Bitcoin is what it is today, is conservative development with very few minor changes once a while. It is predictability.

If people like Michael Saylor invest billions of legacy money into a project you do it because you have observed an asset with a predictable profit, not an asset that will change to something completely different now and then.

Going back to the current heated arguments by a few even OGs.

Had people reacted to the bips and civilized conversation over the years instead of blocking, banning and name calling like some have fallen to, we wouldn't be in this situation.

Grooming devs to be able to piggyback on the network is a low that shouldn't be praised, but it clearly shows that everyone is for sale at the right price.

Let's get the overall conversation and development back to what has made Bitcoin Bitcoin and not the thousands of alt coins and their philosophy.