For additional info on the topic, there's a Bitcoin, Explained episode for that: https://podcast.sprovoost.nl/@nado/episodes/drivechain-nado-23 

 Overhyped claims that didnt survive community scrutiny.  They then started a trolling campaign which backfired spectacularly.  The numbers didnt add up, and it was a rugpull waiting to happen.  Bitcoin once again made the right choice.  Onwards. 

 who are yoy trying to convince? 

 Wouldn't they lobby the miners? 

 Presumably both. Lobby miners to vote no, or lobby devs to blacklist the withdrawal transaction. The latter presumably fails, but can still be a massive distraction and involve (legal) harassment. 

 That seems like a strech. After all, even if the core devs (the people with write access to the github repo) make the black listing node software, there is zero guarantee people will run it.

It appears that you are simply rephrasing the classic UASF concern that has been addressed many times already. 

 Nobody is going to run the malware that CSW wants either. Didn't stop him from dragging a dozen developers into a multi million dollar lawsuit. 

 Exactly, we already have the problem of people suing devs. Drivechains doesn't change that. 

 It increases the number of potential issues to sue over and the number of (potentially well funded) plaintiffs. 

 That's a strech too.  The number of lawsuits will be determined almost entirely to other factors.  As csw shows, your claim does not need any legitimacy to cause huge problems for devs.  

 Which is not to say thay suing devs for a miners steal transaction would have any legitimacy whatsoever 

 Without drivechains, people might lobby Core devs to implement drivechains.