Exchange Ranking
Top Exchanges
24h Volume Ranking
Popularity Ranking
Exchange BTC Balance
Proof of Reserves
Decentralized Exchanges
Funding Rate
Funding Heatmap
Liquidation Data
Max Pain
Long/Short Ratio
Whale L/S Ratio
Binance/Okex/Huobi L/S
Bitfinex Margin L/S
ETF Tracker
Solana ETF
XRP ETF
Hong Kong ETF
Bitcoin Treasuries
Crypto Reversal
Ethereum Reserves
HyperLiquid Wallet Analysis
Hyperliquid Whale Watch
Large Transactions
On-chain Movement
Bitcoin ROI
Stablecoin Market Cap
Options Analysis
News
Articles
Economic Calendar
Features
Wallet
Contract Calculator
Security
Collections
Watchlist
Following
BTC The Strategy executive chairman posted a series of nine posts on X on Tuesday that redefine the entire protocol debate as a constitutional crisis.
"Bitcoin has won. Now it must survive in victory,"Seler wrote on X. "Its greatest threat is not the enemy at the door, but corruption within: factions that fabricate excuses, rewrite rules, and seize economic power until freedom becomes license and law becomes plunder."
Thaler has been criticizing a proposed Bitcoin improvement called BIP-110. The "temporary soft fork to reduce data" proposal would restrict non-financial data such as ordinal inscriptions from entering the Bitcoin blockchain for about a year. Last week, Siler published a 110-point article opposing the proposal titled "110 Reasons Why BIP-110 Is a Bad Idea."
Based on the current state of the proposal, his views seem to have prevailed. Now, Thaler groups BIP-110 with covenants, a smart contract-style restriction that allows users to pre-program how to spend their bitcoins in the future, and the larger block proposal, which calls for increasing the amount of data each block can hold to process more transactions. His verdict on all these proposals: Different ideas, same crimes.
"Some proposals, such as BIP-110, review valid paid transactions. Other proposals add covenants mechanisms. Other proposals call for larger blocks,"he wrote. "Different means, same constitutional crime: one faction rewrites the rules of Bitcoin and imposes its agenda, costs and risks on everyone."
The constitutional metaphor here does work. In Thaler's framework, Bitcoin's consensus rules-a set of rules agreed by all nodes and miners to determine what constitutes a valid transaction-are functionally equivalent to a country's fundamental law. He believes that rewriting these rules for the ideological preferences of any faction is not just updating software, but confiscating people's economic rights.
"Bitcoin's consensus rules are its constitution," he wrote. "To rewrite them for the convenience of any faction is to attack the economic rights of every participant today and every generation to come."
"Agreement changes must be rare, conservative, and driven by necessity rather than ambition. Constitution that defends Bitcoin. Defend the future,"he wrote.
The main advocate of BIP-110 is its anonymous author, Dathon Ohm, while long-time Bitcoin developer Luke Dashjr was a key participant in the original draft writing. The proposal is mainly supported by Bitcoin Knots and a relatively small "anti-spam" group around node operators, who believe Bitcoin should focus on point-to-point currencies rather than becoming a permanent storage layer for ordinal numbers, tokens, images and other arbitrary data.
Their argument is that miners charge a one-time fee by including these loads, while each full-node operator must bear long-term storage, bandwidth and verification costs. From their perspective, this is not censorship in itself, but rather the protection of scarce public resources (i.e. blockchain capacity).
BIP-110's mandatory signaling window-the moment when nodes running the proposal software begin to reject non-compliant blocks-opens around August 9, at a block height of 961,632. According to the BIP-110 signal panel, the miners 'support rate is only 2.64%, far below the 55% required for activation.
