帕尔韦兹 Parvez ahmmed's Profile

PINNED

·

--

Verified

🚨 Bitcoin’s Next Great Debate: Is BIP-110 a Threat to the Network? The Bitcoin community is currently locked in a heated governance struggle over BIP-110, a proposal intended to curb "spam" (such as Ordinals and BRC-20s) by limiting non-financial data on the chain. However, two of the most influential figures in the space—Michael Saylor and Adam Back—have sounded a massive alarm. They argue that the "cure" may be far more dangerous than the "disease." Why are they pushing back? 💁‍♂️ The Precedent of Censorship: Adam Back argues that Bitcoin is fundamentally permissionless. He warns that attempting to police "other people’s transactions" sets a dangerous precedent that contradicts Bitcoin’s core ethos of neutrality. Systemic Risk👇: Michael Saylor has been vocal about the dangers of changing consensus rules to solve a dispute. He warns that BIP-110 could invalidate currently valid, fee-paying transactions and erode the institutional predictability that makes Bitcoin the ultimate "anchor asset." 📌Fork Potential: Critics fear that forcing this change could trigger a contentious chain split, forcing miners, exchanges, and custodians to take sides—a scenario that could lead to extreme market volatility. The Current Landscape: 👀 Lack of Support: Despite the noise, miner signaling for the proposal remains near 0%, making activation highly unlikely under normal conditions. The "Spam" Cooling Off: On-chain data shows a significant drop in Ordinals activity compared to the 2023 peaks, leading many to wonder if BIP-110 is a solution in search of a problem. The Bottom Line: 🎯 Is it worth risking a network fracture to clean up the mempool? Saylor and Back are betting that the cost of intervention is far higher than the cost of living with some "spam." What’s your take? Should we protect Bitcoin's "cash-only" purity at all costs, or is the risk of a protocol-level split just too high? 👇 Let’s discuss in the comments. #bitcoin #BTC #BIP110 #MichaelSaylor

🚨 Bitcoin’s Next Great Debate:
Is BIP-110 a Threat to the Network?

The Bitcoin community is currently locked in a heated governance struggle over BIP-110, a proposal intended to curb "spam" (such as Ordinals and BRC-20s) by limiting non-financial data on the chain.

However, two of the most influential figures in the space—Michael Saylor and Adam Back—have sounded a massive alarm. They argue that the "cure" may be far more dangerous than the "disease."

Why are they pushing back? 💁‍♂️

The Precedent of Censorship: Adam Back argues that Bitcoin is fundamentally permissionless. He warns that attempting to police "other people’s transactions" sets a dangerous precedent that contradicts Bitcoin’s core ethos of neutrality.

Systemic Risk👇: Michael Saylor has been vocal about the dangers of changing consensus rules to solve a dispute. He warns that BIP-110 could invalidate currently valid, fee-paying transactions and erode the institutional predictability that makes Bitcoin the ultimate "anchor asset."

📌Fork Potential: Critics fear that forcing this change could trigger a contentious chain split, forcing miners, exchanges, and custodians to take sides—a scenario that could lead to extreme market volatility.

The Current Landscape: 👀

Lack of Support: Despite the noise, miner signaling for the proposal remains near 0%, making activation highly unlikely under normal conditions.

The "Spam" Cooling Off: On-chain data shows a significant drop in Ordinals activity compared to the 2023 peaks, leading many to wonder if BIP-110 is a solution in search of a problem.

The Bottom Line: 🎯

Is it worth risking a network fracture to clean up the mempool? Saylor and Back are betting that the cost of intervention is far higher than the cost of living with some "spam."

What’s your take? Should we protect Bitcoin's "cash-only" purity at all costs, or is the risk of a protocol-level split just too high?

👇 Let’s discuss in the comments.

#bitcoin #BTC #BIP110 #MichaelSaylor

帕尔韦兹 Parvez ahmmed

Trending Topics