Bitcoin community heavyweights unanimously oppose BIP 110, stressing that Bitcoin’s spirit of decentralization cannot be compromised

On July 12, controversy over BIP 110 within the Bitcoin community continued to escalate. The incident began when Adam Back, co-founder of Blockstream, posted that although he understands the supporters’ original intention—“to hate spam transactions and hope to protect the network”—he believes BIP 110 is essentially an act of “trying to monitor others.”

Adam Back warned that this approach would seriously erode Bitcoin’s decentralization, security, and neutrality, directly conflicting with Bitcoin’s fundamental spirit.

He also specifically emphasized that using consensus changes to address spam transactions would set a dangerous precedent, potentially creating a dangerous precedent for the entire Bitcoin ecosystem.

Soon after, Strategy founder Michael Saylor reposted and commented on the post, saying that the real threats Bitcoin faces go far beyond spam. “There are 110 things more dangerous than spam.”

Michael Saylor pointed out that BIP 110 would render certain transactions—currently valid and with already paid transaction fees—ineffective. The truly dangerous part lies in the precedent of undermining network neutrality; therefore, the community should focus its efforts on more important threats.

Earlier, Bitcoin Magazine chairman David Baileyv also commented that the outcome of the controversy was a long-term “extremely bullish,” further validating Bitcoin network’s powerful ability to withstand attacks and resist splits.

Taken together, the unanimous opposition from these heavyweight figures signals a major setback for the BIP 110 proposal at the community consensus level. This situation also highlights Bitcoin’s core principles—decentralization and resistance to censorship—which still have strong defenders within the community.

#BIP110