This is what I was trying to understand for the last week. The supporters of BIP 110 keep saying these things like "asymmetric advantage" and "we don't even need a majority of hashrate" and I couldn't see how such things were true...unless they actually had a majority of hashrate.

I think what I established yesterday was that they believe they have an advantage in attracting hashrate and this advantage stems from a game-theoretical claim that it is less risky for a miner to mine on the 110 side in event of a split.

They seem to believe this is true primarily because the btc chain cannot "wipeout" the 110 chain, while 110 chain can wipeout the btc chain (if it gets and sustains a majority of hashrate).

"Wipeout" in this context means orphan. As in the 110 chain is valid as far as the btc nodes see, and therefore if it ever accumulated enough PoW, the btc side of the split would be orphaned and all nodes would see the 110 chain as heaviest valid chain.

But as I tried to express to some if them yesterday, this is circular: it is saying we will attract hashrate because we attract hashrate.

I would be very curious to hear @dathon_ohm's response to this. I believe they have stated similar things here: https://x.com/dathon_ohm/status/2012311839594471791

Your point about using btc and 110, versus the awful mess I made in the OP is accurate. I was trying to avoid antagonizing anyone by labeling one side or the other as the "true btc" side