Michael Saylor is urging Bitcoin builders to reject BIP 110, a plan he says treats an actual downside with one thing extra harmful.
The MicroStrategy chairman posted his critique on X, arguing that Bitcoin Enchancment Proposal 110 (BIP 110), nicknamed the “Lowered Knowledge Short-term Softfork,” trades away protocol neutrality for a short lived, largely symbolic win.
A BIP is solely a proper proposal to vary Bitcoin’s core guidelines, and this one would briefly limit how sure transactions are constructed to curb information storage on the blockchain.
Bitcoin’s Shared Objective, a Totally different Treatment
Saylor says he shares the authors’ objectives. He desires to guard node operators from pointless prices, hold funds inexpensive, and push Bitcoin towards being a sound cash reasonably than a general-purpose storage system.
Nonetheless, he insists the seven consensus restrictions punish legitimate, fee-paying transactions for one cause: unpopular content material. The proposal would cap script sizes, limit Taproot management blocks, and bar spending of undefined witness variations.
Saylor calls these adjustments a blunt proxy for a value no person has truly measured.
The plan reached “Full” standing below BIP 3 in June, a label that alerts writer readiness reasonably than neighborhood settlement. It grandfathers unspent outputs created earlier than activation, a safeguard Saylor calls vital however incomplete.
His stance echoes Adam Again’s blunt takedown of BIP 110, which predicts the push stalls inside weeks of necessary signaling.
Bitcoin’s Improve Paths at Danger
Saylor’s sharpest warning targets Bitcoin’s future optionality. Bitcoin’s code reserves sure unused technical choices so future upgrades can broaden with out breaking something already operating. BIP 110 would shut a few of these reserved choices, together with ones tied to BitVM, an experimental methodology for constructing complicated agreements on Bitcoin with no trusted intermediary.
It could additionally tighten the depth of sure transaction buildings, limiting how complicated some setups can develop into.
Saylor’s core criticism is that these seven adjustments are offered as a single bundle. Supporters can’t again the narrower rule most agree on with out additionally accepting six others that some might reject.
Saylor raised comparable considerations about protocol drift earlier than, framing bold rule adjustments as a better risk than the issues they aim.
Neutrality Over Social Strain
Saylor wrote in closing:
“Bitcoin doesn’t want guardians of purity. It wants guardians of neutrality,” Saylor wrote in closing.
The proposal’s 55% miner-signaling threshold sits nicely beneath BIP 9’s standard 95%. That decrease bar considerations Saylor as a result of it eases the trail for a contentious change whereas dropping the usual failure state. The deployment window lasts roughly a yr, after which a brand new EXPIRED state ends it if help by no means companies up.
He favors charges and a voluntary relay coverage, instruments that already ration block area with out judging a transaction’s goal. This view sits alongside his broader bull case for Bitcoin, constructed on fastened provide and the institutional enchantment outlined in his company adoption thesis.
Whether or not BIP 110 gathers sufficient help to activate stays unsettled. Critics like Peter Schiff hold attacking Bitcoin’s fundamentals from a completely totally different angle.
For now, the controversy splits builders who again slim technical guardrails from those that see BIP 110 as protocol overreach. Builders face a selection: pursue measurable fixes, or undertake a bundled restriction Saylor calls a harmful precedent.
The put up MicroStrategy’s Saylor Says BIP 110 is Extra Harmful Than Bitcoin’s Knowledge Drawback appeared first on BeInCrypto.