Bitcoin’s latest governance debate intensified after Blockstream co-founder Adam Back and Strategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor publicly opposed Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 110, arguing that the proposal threatens the network’s decentralized governance model and could lead to a contentious chain split.
The criticism comes as supporters of BIP 110 push for stricter transaction filtering to address concerns over spam on the Bitcoin network.
However, Back and Saylor contend that changing Bitcoin’s consensus rules to solve what they view as a policy dispute would introduce far greater risks than the problem it seeks to address.
Adam Back Says Bip 110 Conflicts With Bitcoin’s Permissionless Design
In a lengthy statement published on X, Adam Back argued that many newer Bitcoin users supporting BIP 110 have underestimated the implications of changing Bitcoin’s consensus rules.
Back said Bitcoin’s primary mission has always been to provide censorship-resistant, permissionless money built on decentralization rather than centralized decision-making.
According to him, the same decentralized architecture that protects Bitcoin also prevents any group from imposing its preferences on other network participants.
“The decentralization needed to create cypherpunk money has implications,” Back wrote.
“A side effect of decentralization is that you can’t impose your views on others.”
While acknowledging widespread frustration over blockchain spam and changes to Bitcoin’s default OP_RETURN relay policy, Back stressed that he personally has long opposed spam, noting that his Hashcash proof-of-work system was originally designed as an anti-spam mechanism decades before Bitcoin existed.
Nevertheless, he argued that BIP 110 attempts to police how other users transact rather than relying on Bitcoin’s existing market-based incentives.
Back also defended Bitcoin’s highly conservative development process, describing it as similar to the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), where broad technical consensus, not individual developers or public opinion, determines protocol changes.
According to him, Bitcoin’s strong resistance to change serves as an important security feature, preventing modifications that could weaken its decentralization or core properties.
Back Warns Supporters That Pursuing Bip 110 Could Result in a Fork
Back warned that if BIP 110 supporters remain committed to implementing the proposal despite widespread opposition, the likely outcome would be a separate blockchain rather than changes to Bitcoin itself.
He argued that Bitcoin’s permissionless nature allows anyone to modify the software and launch an alternative network, but emphasized that such efforts should not expect the broader Bitcoin ecosystem to follow.
“If you won’t listen to reason… your permissionless recourse is to club together and create a fork. But Bitcoin won’t be joining it,” Back wrote.
Rather than pursuing a split, he encouraged supporters to continue participating within Bitcoin’s existing ecosystem, arguing that protocol developers broadly share the same long-term goal of preserving Bitcoin as censorship-resistant, hard money.
Back also rejected suggestions that Bitcoin developers are indifferent to spam, saying many core contributors have spent decades studying decentralized systems and remain committed to protecting the network without compromising its foundational principles.
Michael Saylor Warns Against Changing the Bitcoin Consensus Over Spam
Michael Saylor echoed similar concerns, arguing that BIP 110 elevates a policy disagreement into a potentially dangerous change in consensus.
“There are 110 things more dangerous to Bitcoin than spam,” Saylor wrote on X.
According to Saylor, BIP 110 would invalidate certain transactions that are currently considered valid and pay transaction fees, creating a precedent that future groups could use to restrict other categories of transactions.
He argued that such a shift poses a far greater threat than spam itself because it undermines Bitcoin’s long-standing principle that valid transactions remain valid under existing consensus rules.
Rather than focusing on transaction filtering, Saylor said the Bitcoin community should devote its efforts to addressing more significant risks facing the network.
