Share it
In today’s issue of Bitcoin, Michael Saylor, Co-Founder of Strategy and the largest publicly listed company BTC Incensator, has gone on record against BIP-110, he wants one year of soft forks to prevent non-financial data storage on the Bitcoin blockchain, arguing that the product he wants carries the target risk of the target more than the nature of it.
His criticism, sent to X and covered by the Bitcoin Foundation on July 11, makes the whole debate not as a question of spam-management but as a question of the management of Bitcoin: who decides what constitutes a valid transaction, and what happens when that line is drawn within the protocol.
Such preparation cuts directly to the first problem. As Saylor said in his X post, “He wrote: “BIP 110 transforms the spam debate into a contract amendment that will create other available, paid services.
That is the danger.” The concern was not particularly about Ordinals or blockchain spam today; is what the protocol is when it starts filtering events with the goal of detection instead of fines and privacy authentication.
Bitcoin News: The Miner Threshold is the Flashpoint
The BIP-110 launcher drew a lot of fire as it is. The proposal will close if the miners support at least 55% of the blocks during the 2,016-block period – below the 95% that has been governing the evolution of the stable consensus in Bitcoin.
Saylor has described the reduction as a design risk, warning that it could lead to network fragmentation and market uncertainty at a time when no such disruption is justified by the risk.
The current picture of mining gives a warning: as of July 13, the support stopped at about 1.3%, according to the BIP-110 monitoring group on bip110.org. The voluntary deadline falls on block 961,542 in August.
A 55% limit is aggressive with any standard record in the Bitcoin regime; at the treatment of 1.3%, it is no longer available at the moment, but the limit remains a control concern regardless of the number of symptoms.
The development of emotional technology is growing in the sense that it is temporary. BIP-110 will restore the limit on OP_RETURN outputs, prevent large data uploads, and reject blocks with transactions that are valid according to current Bitcoin rules.
Nodes that adopt BIP-110, in fact, can verify a narrower definition of what transactions are valid than nodes that don’t, Saylor points out.
Bitcoin Neutrality vs. Protocol Gatekeeping
Saylor’s deeper argument is that Bitcoin’s net neutrality is not a soft preference; are structural properties that networks cannot afford to disrupt.
With this Bitcoin message drop, the opinion reframes the change in the laws related to fighting spam as a decision of reasonable, payment payment networks must accept, raising concerns embedding the judgment in the protocol.
Cold-effect logic follows directly. If the associated rules can be changed to exclude the retention of data when a section of the community labels it as spam, the same approach is available to other groups that may raise similar concerns.
Investors who have followed the direction of the Strategy and the amount of corporate wealth based on the Bitcoin corporate treasury position are betting openly on the stability of the protocol. A regulatory process that may include legal proceedings creates a risk group that is not disproportionate to the cost or size.
There is also a direct pay-for-money argument. Suppression of chain-use cases, whether their beauty is justified, may affect the need for fines.
Saylor’s position is that market-based payments and individual referral policies are the right tools to manage unwanted traffic, because they work without changing the contract and can be changed or modified without an internet connection event.
The Great Criticism and What Happens Next
In other Bitcoin news, Saylor isn’t the only famous voice pushing back. Some long-time Bitcoin supporters have also publicly opposed BIP-110. The debate has highlighted a major disagreement in Bitcoin’s governance over who has the most effective voting power: miners, node developers, or major owners, and whether a 55% mining quota is a legitimate way to unlock this kind of change.
With mining support well at zero six weeks before the August deadline and no solid rationale behind the request, BIP-110 would be hard to push below the 55% signature requirement. But the argument for authority that Saylor is making does not end with this idea.
The question of whether the Bitcoin contract should be used to discriminate between types of trading, and who should make the call, is now on the table. Organizational players have a direct role in how this question is answered.
The method is worth about 843,775 BTC. His argument is not a philosophical one. It is a position from the largest Bitcoin site in existence, and it is firmly on the side of protecting the neutrality of the protocol.
Note: The best crypto to change your profile
