- Strategy Chair Michael Saylor doubled down on his opposition to BIP 110, arguing that it would deconstruct the freedom, liberty, and decentralization Bitcoin offers.
- He shares the same sentiment as Blockstream CEO Adam Back, who considered the proposal a downgrade for BTC.
- Meanwhile, others argued that BIP 110 aligns with Satoshi Nakamoto’s original vision for Bitcoin.
Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 110 has been a hotly contested topic in the crypto community. It has drawn widespread opposition from the big names in the industry, including Bitcoin (BTC) OG and Blockstream CEO Adam Back.
Michael Saylor, Executive Chairman of Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy), is also one of the loudest critics of the proposal, which aims to rewrite how Bitcoin operates.
Michael Saylor’s Doubles Down On Opposition To BIP 110
After publishing 110 reasons why BIP 110 is such a bad idea, Saylor doubled down on how the proposal comes to the detriment of the Bitcoin ecosystem. He considered it contrary to the very freedom BTC offers and limits its utility as a monetary tool.
“The impulse to change Bitcoin’s rules merely to prevent others from using Bitcoin in ways you disapprove of is statist and alien to a community rooted in liberty, property rights, free markets, natural law, and Austrian economics,” said Saylor. “BIP 110 would impose monetary purity by fiat.”
Most agreed with Saylor, arguing that BIP 110 would compromise its decentralized nature. Others commented that the community has always dictated Bitcoin rather than its code.
Back, one of the usual suspects at discussions centering on the true identity of Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto, expressed the same sentiment as Saylor. He fired back at supporters of BIP 110, calling them clueless about Bitcoin’s nature and purpose. Moreover, the CEO of Blockstream saw the proposal as a downgrade rather than a cleanup for the chain.
“They don’t know Bitcoin,” Back described the people pushing for BIP 110.
Some Point Out that BIP 110 Aligns with Satoshi Nakamoto’s Design
On the other hand, some argued that it’s about time for Bitcoin to limit arbitrary data spamming its network. One even pulled out an old thread involving Satoshi where he told people that ECDSA is only for signing signatures, not for encrypting messages.
Satoshi called permanently recorded plaintext messages in the network that everyone could see an “accident waiting to happen.” He recommended that if there’s going to be a message system for Bitcoin, the messages should not be embedded in the network.
Instead, the messages should run on a system parallel to the Bitcoin network. In addition, Satoshi stated that users could sign the messages with their Bitcoin address keys as proof of their source.
