WuBlockchain
Blockstream co-founder and Hashcash inventor Adam Back and Strategy founder Michael Saylor have both come out against implementing BIP 110 on the Bitcoin network.
Back argued that BIP 110 attempts to police other people's transactions and conflicts with Bitcoin's core principles of decentralization and permissionlessness, warning that pushing it forward would only lead to a fork. Saylor took a narrower technical line, saying the proposal turns a spam dispute into a consensus change that would invalidate some currently valid, fee-paying transactions, a precedent he called highly dangerous.
Why it matters
The opposition matters less for either voice individually than for what the alignment signals. Back speaks for the cypherpunk technical lineage that treats any policy-level filtering at the consensus layer as a foundational breach. Saylor speaks for the corporate-treasury constituency that now holds a meaningful share of circulating supply and treats transaction-finality guarantees as a non-negotiable property of the asset. A proposal drawing fire from both ends of that spectrum is unlikely to gather the social consensus required to activate.
Market impact
The near-term market effect is muted: BIP 110 has no activation path without broad node-operator and miner support, and the public pushback narrows that path further. The relevant read for investors is the precedent it sets for how Bitcoin's governance absorbs content-policy disputes, and whether they stay at the mempool and relay layer or get pushed into consensus itself.
Frequently asked questions
-
What is BIP 110?
BIP 110 is a proposed Bitcoin improvement proposal that has drawn criticism for attempting to police or filter specific transactions at the consensus layer, rather than leaving policy decisions to the mempool and relay layer.
-
Why did Adam Back oppose BIP 110?
Back argued that BIP 110 attempts to police other people's transactions and conflicts with Bitcoin's principles of decentralization and permissionlessness, warning that pushing it forward would only lead to a fork.
-
Why did Michael Saylor oppose BIP 110?
Saylor said the proposal turns a spam dispute into a consensus change that would invalidate some currently valid, fee-paying transactions, calling the precedent highly dangerous for Bitcoin's transaction-finality guarantees.
-
Could BIP 110 actually activate on Bitcoin?
Activation requires broad node-operator and miner support, and the public opposition from Back and Saylor narrows the social-consensus path further. As of now the proposal has no clear path to activation.
-
What does this dispute say about Bitcoin governance?
The episode highlights how Bitcoin's governance absorbs content-policy disputes, and whether such decisions belong at the mempool and relay layer or get pushed into consensus itself. The backlash signals strong resistance to encoding policy choices into consensus rules.
CoinTelegraph
Altcoin Daily
CoinDesk
Crypto News
Lookonchain
TheBlock
Glassnode