Wu Says he learned that Strategy founder Michael Saylor published a long-form post, “110 Reasons BIP 110 Is a Bad Idea,” openly opposing the BIP 110 proposal that would limit data storage uses such as inscriptions. Saylor said that although some inscriptions, tokens, or files may be worthless or even fraudulent, whether their existence should be limited by changing consensus rules is another matter. Saylor believes that Bitcoin cannot determine the purpose of data; the protocol should remain neutral, and controversial transactions should be determined by the fee market, node policies, and miner strategies—not banned at the consensus layer. He said: Bitcoin doesn’t need guardians of purity; it needs guardians of neutrality.

BTC0.37%
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 6
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
Add a comment
Add a comment
BTCMissionary
· 16h ago
They say it like that, but the garbage data taking up block space is definitely annoying too—can the fee market solve it?
View OriginalReply0
MemeAnalyst0
· 18h ago
Haha, the metaphor of “the guardian of purity vs. the guardian of neutrality” is brilliant.
View OriginalReply0
LiquidityAngel
· 18h ago
Bitcoin’s core is resistance to censorship; any attempt to define whether data is good or bad is dangerous.
View OriginalReply0
MemeRepeater
· 18h ago
Support Saylor! The value of Bitcoin lies in an immutable neutral ledger, not in being a digital garbage dump in some people’s eyes.
View OriginalReply0
BlackThursdayVet
· 18h ago
Saylor is right—Bitcoin doesn’t need moral police.
View OriginalReply0
LiqHunter
· 18h ago
In fact, miners and nodes are already using transaction fees for voting, so there’s no need to tamper with things at the protocol level. BIP 110 is indeed redundant.
View OriginalReply0
  • Pinned