Some people never learn. In case of a hard-fork, everyone knows, what to do. Then, the situation is the same, as it was during BTC and BCH: sell the coin you don't want, and buy the coin you want. Which means, that people can sell Luke-BTCs for BTCs, and move on. It is already tested, there were many Bitcoin copycats, this one won't be anything new, if it would be a hard-fork.

Hard-forks are not serious. If some hard-fork doesn't have 99.9% market support, then it can easily fail. The "logical path" would be to handle a subset of the mainnet traffic, while still working on the same chain. Forcing censorship on everyone is going to hurt censors more, than the rest of the community. It is much better to convince people, to stay on the same chain, and handle only part of it, instead of forcing everyone to prune some data.

Also, the logical consequence is that some people would use Luke-BTCs, to push data inside private keys, and expose them through weak signatures. If that could work on Grin and Monero, then it could work on Luke-BTCs as well. And then, if everyone will see, that spammers can put their data even into Luke-BTCs, then the community will switch back to the original chain. And then, traders will do the rest, by bringing Luke-BTCs value to the similar levels, as BCH and BSV, or even below that.

Another thing is if Luke's chain will not have 51% hashrate support from double-SHA-256 hashers, then it would be ironic, if it would be attacked in a similar way, as CoiledCoin. Because mining Luke-BTCs and selling them for BTCs is something, that does not break any consensus rules. And if Luke-BTCs will be attacked in a similar way, as testnets were, then he will just taste his own medicine, by seeing his chain destroyed, or made unusable in a similar way, as some altcoins, which were attacked by him.