I DON'T see a world where #Bip110 supporters will be welcomed back & able to work together. @BarefootMining will be fine as more Hash Rate is always welcome. @start9labs will likely survive, but I expect sales to drop. * But ALL the Talking Heads will be treated like Ver & CSW

How can you look at the UTXO Bloat & call it a non- problem? 👇 - There is NO UTXO 'bloat' in my view ... In 2016 there was a compromise w/ Big Blockers to increase the amount of data stuffed into a 1mb block w/ witness data (aka SegWit). From that moment on, I have accepted the reality that up to 4mb of data can fit into a single block every 10 minutes. And in a perfect world, bitcoin is popular enough so that every block is full! - While the type of data that has been 'occasionally' popular to enter the block space has been 'unwanted', it does not change the technical reality that the Bitcoin blockchain is growing at an even slower pace than it was designed to grow (maybe read point above again if you are confused). We all expected block space to be full with ONLY financial data by now as the world realizes Bitcoin is the best form of payment & savings. But today blocks are NOT full and that space is available for other uses. - In addition, if these spammers were to switch from using Witness Data to Op_Return space instead, they would actually take up LESS space in the UTXO set with this spam instead of more! (This is the technical reason for removing the limit most #Bip110 supporters are not able to, or refuse to understand)

Total false equivalence. I am unvaxed and pro-BIP-110. And I don't care about filters. I care about data limitations, as all sensible network protocols that wish to protect themselves against attack are. Is your bank a "Covidian" when it prevents you from adding a novel to your memo field? Is your webmail "Covidian" when it prevents you from attaching a movie to an email? No, they are just protecting their networks, because they want those networks to continue to exist next year. Why is bitcoin not allowed to have an official, arbitrary data limit in transactions, lest anyone calling for it be considered [insert-unsavory-thing-here]? Seems like victim blaming when it's my node that has to store filth from people like this, while people like you argue that I need to essentially just shut up and take it:

HUGE BIP-110 update video in the works. Stay tuned. #BIP110

BIP-110 improves the health of the bitcoin network, is not disruptive, and is virtually costless to implement. Moreover, it expires after one year. There is enough demonstrated support for a miner to strongly consider the easiest and least painful option: signal for BIP-110.

Yikes now Craig Wright is on the anti-BIP-110 side

> "Bro, what kind of a pleb would want a fork?" Well, last I checked, there's about 15,000 of us and growing. You wouldn't want to fork if you thought NOT doing so would doom bitcoin? Why not? What kind of bitcoiner are you? > "This bip requires a consensus change" Yup, we know. Can't just go back to policy defaults in the world where Core tipped their hand and is hostile to the entire notion. We're actually trying to win here... > "...its not even solving the problem" Depends on how you frame it. If you're talking about unlimited, arbitrary data storage in transactions support in bitcoin, then it absolutely, provably does do this. > "...it requires only 55% to activate" The reason for the 55% (miner activation) is because the people who came up with it can add, and they realized that large mining pools control most of the mining; and they didn't want any one of them to be able to block the whole mining activation pathway. But it will also activate 100% no matter what even if miners don't do this first, because miners don't control the network. And if they ever decide that they do, and are successful, it's RIP bitcoin. > "its a joke and its making bitcoin change while its most important attribute is difficulty of changing" If you think the most important part is the difficulty in changing it, why don't you care that Core v30 changed bitcoin to officially support unlimited, contiguous, arbitrary data in transactions via OP_RETURN? That one move changed bitcoin from money to data storage, and it slipped right in despite controversy, and get this---it wasn't even a consensus change. So here we are, trying to change it back, and we get criticized as the one's changing bitcoin. Lower your time preference. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume that you're new to the debate, and that you just weren't aware of what's been going on or the reasons for the design of the BIP. I can point you to sources for additional reading if you're interested. It's not too late to change your mind and join the fight. I don't care how big or small you are. Every node matters.

Bitcoin reignites a new governance battle. Leonidas announces DOG Mode, a client aiming to relax relay policies to make Ordinals and Runes easier to propagate across the network. On the opposing side is BIP-110, which seeks to restrict arbitrary data on Bitcoin. One side argues that block space must be a neutral market; the other insists Bitcoin should prioritize money. DOG Mode currently has no code. But the debate it has sparked is already significant. Who truly decides the rules of Bitcoin?

Consensus is Bitcoin’s most valuable asset—and changing it should require extraordinary scrutiny. BIP 110 isn’t simply a debate about Ordinals or arbitrary data. It’s a debate about Bitcoin’s future governance model. Should consensus remain strictly content-neutral, leaving block-space allocation to market forces? Or should consensus occasionally intervene to preserve long-term decentralization? I analyzed the proposal from multiple perspectives: • Technical architecture and consensus mechanics • Economic incentives and the fee market • Governance and activation trade-offs • Security, implementation, and long-term protocol evolution Rather than advocating for either side, the goal is to separate evidence from assumptions, identify trade-offs, and frame the debate through first principles. The strongest Bitcoin discussions challenge ideas—not people. I welcome thoughtful perspectives from developers, researchers, node operators, miners, and long-term holders. @saylor #Bitcoin #BIP110 #OpenSource

👀U read Bitcoin BIP 110 everywhere, but what is it? 👇Explained 📝BIP - Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 🆕BIP110 is a new proposal for a temporary soft fork that would limit arbitrary data stored on Bitcoin 🎯Goal 🤏Reduce the amount of nonpayment data stored on the Bitcoin blockchain ❌Reduce inscription ❌Reduce spam abuse ✅keep Bitcoin focused on money ✅Help keep transaction fees affordable for payments 🤔Why do @saylor & critics oppose it? 🤷it's about Bitcoin neutrality ❌It changes Bitcoin's neutral rules to block specific uses ❌Could reduce flexibility for future upgrades 😲What happens to Ordinals/Bitcoin NFTs? ❌Existing Ordinals/NFTs would remain ❌New inscription based NFTs would likely no longer be mintable under the proposed rules 📝It is only in proposal stage ❌Not live 🤷I think this proposal is not needed ✅Inscriptions introduced new experimentation and utility on Bitcoin, even if they were controversial 🫵Wt do u think? 🤔Do u support BIP110 or not? 💙Like 🔁RT