Bitcoin BIP 110 controversy intensifies: Michael Saylor releases 110 objections

Strategy founder Michael Siler releases comprehensive evaluation of the BIP110 proposal

Strategy founder Michael Siler released a comprehensive evaluation report on the BIP110 proposal. The proposal aims to restrict data use on the Bitcoin network. Siler pointed out that although supporters of the proposal share the same goals as everyone-reducing node operating costs, maintaining payment accessibility, and maintaining Bitcoin's position as a sound currency, he opposes amending the consensus rules as a solution.

Selle added that those who support BIP110 are all out of good faith. He said the root cause of the debate was not individuals, but the technical and governance risks posed by the proposal. While Selle did not defend every inscription, token, document or application, he pointed out that the fundamental question was whether transactions that were valid and payable under existing rules should be blocked at the consensus level because their use was controversial.

Core content of the BIP110 proposal

It is estimated that BIP110 plans to introduce seven new restrictions on Bitcoin's consensus rules during its approximately one-year active period. The proposal aims to limit the size of new script public keys, certain payloads, Taproot control blocks, and some Tapscript features, while temporarily disabling Taproot appendixes, OP_SUCCESSx, and future witness data and Taleaf versions.

The proposal also includes an activation model that is different from the standard BIP 9 mechanism. It plans to reduce the miners 'signal threshold from the usual 95% to 55%, implement a mandatory signal period, and eliminate the classic timeout mechanism. Thaler believes that choosing a lower activation threshold in controversial consensus changes increases the risk of chain fragmentation and economic uncertainty.

The core of Siler's objection: Bitcoin neutrality

The core of Siler's objection lies in Bitcoin neutrality. He believes that the Bitcoin network cannot distinguish whether the data in a transaction is visual content, contract, certification record, certificate of reserve, or some application to be developed in the future. Therefore, restrictions based on technical forms may also affect legitimate use scenarios.

Thaler pointed out that the concept of "spam" cannot be objectively defined through consensus rules. Even if a transaction is deemed meaningless, speculative or controversial, that does not invalidate it. According to Siler, if a transaction complies with existing rules and pays for it, then society's dissatisfaction with its use does not constitute a sufficient reason to revise the consensus.

Thaler mentioned that the BIP110 does not provide measurable goals for node costs, decentralization, transaction costs, and paid user benefits. He added that bandwidth, storage, unspent transaction output growth, verification overhead and fee impact need to be analyzed separately.

Impact on technology reserves and smart contracts

Thaler pointed out that the proposal would close areas originally reserved for future software updates to Bitcoin, such as the Taproot appendix, future witness versions, Taleafa versions, and OP_SUCCESSx. He said that just because these features are not currently actively used does not mean they are redundant. These areas are specifically reserved for future needs.

Thaler mentioned that the proposal could affect advanced off-chain contracts like BitVM, certain builds generated by Miniscript, and custom Taproot scenarios. He added that even temporary restrictions could significantly change developer plans, wallet software and institutional risk strategies over a long period of time.

Temporary nature does not eliminate risk

In Thaler's view, the temporary nature of BIP110 does not eliminate risk. He believes that activation dates and expiration dates will create two independent critical consensus thresholds, and that granting exemptions to historically unspent transaction outputs will make the verification rules more complex.

Thaler said that although BIP 110 is designed to reduce payment fees by restricting data processing, its economic consequences are uncertain. He pointed out that demand could shift to more complex methods, or total transaction fee revenue could fall.

Thaler notes that as each halving of Bitcoin results in reduced block rewards, transaction fees have become increasingly important to miners 'income. He believes that other conditions being equal, the decline in total fee demand may weaken investment in computing power.

Thaler also pointed out that Bitcoin already allocates scarce block space in a neutral manner through its block weight caps and fee markets. He said users do not need to disclose the purpose of their transactions, and miners can decide for themselves which transactions to include in their blocks.

Alternatives and potential dangers

Thaler proposes using nodes, relays and mining strategies to handle controversial data transactions rather than modifying consensus rules. He pointed out that data transfer strategies in the core of Bitcoin are configurable. He believes that miners have the right to exclude certain transaction types from their blocks, but this is a different matter from invalidating those transactions across the network.

He said that if resource consumption does prove to be disproportionate, narrower regulatory measures based on measurable technology costs rather than transaction intentions could be considered. He also suggested work on pruning, on-demand data storage, second-tier solutions, and more advanced expense market tools.

According to Selle's analysis, the most dangerous consequence of BIP 110 is not the provisional rule itself, but the permanent precedent it will create. He believes that amending consensus today to prevent the use of certain data may pave the way for similar demands in the future in terms of privacy tools, new storage methods, stablecoin consensus, token systems or enterprise applications.

Thaler stated that no group in Bitcoin has exclusive rights over consensus. He emphasized the need for extensive collaboration among developers, node operators, miners, investors, exchanges, wallet providers, custodians and institutions.

Thaler also believes that institutional participation is legal for Bitcoin. Companies provide capital, scale, accountability and continuity, but that does not mean agencies have special powers in reaching consensus, he said.

Thaler pointed out in his summary of the 110-point assessment that the solutions proposed by BIP 110 are more dangerous than the problems it seeks to solve. He characterized the proposal as a "Bitcoin iatrogenic proposal," meaning that the treatment imposed on Bitcoin caused greater harm.