Recently, I noticed that the Bitcoin community is quite divided regarding BIP-110. It is a proposal that aims to restrict non-monetary data in blocks, essentially targeting protocols like Ordinals and Runes. The interesting part here is that the structure of the debate reflects deep tensions about what Bitcoin really is.

The proposal sets a activation threshold of 55% of the hash power, which sounds technical but has serious political implications. Supporters say it would bring back technical prudence, reduce the load on nodes, and optimize how the fee market works. In theory, it sounds good.

But here’s the problem: critics have solid arguments. That low threshold could break the consensus traditions that Bitcoin has maintained for years. There is a real risk of chain split, something no one wants to see. And then there’s the issue of rule stability, which is practically Bitcoin’s DNA.

What I find relevant is that the structure of the debate touches on points that go beyond the technical. We’re talking about fee income for miners, the security budget, decentralization, and how far governance can go without breaking the protocol. It’s not just code; it’s philosophy.

The structure of the debate also exposes a reality: Bitcoin is at a point where the interests of different actors clash. Miners see their income threatened, the technical community is concerned about scalability, and users of Ordinals and Runes defend their right to use the chain as they see fit. Each side has a point.

Personally, I believe that this kind of discussion is necessary. The structure of the debate shows that Bitcoin remains decentralized in decision-making, even if that causes friction. The important thing is that true consensus is not lost along the way.