As the debate over the two technical proposals for bitcoin continued, foreign media claimed that President Strategy Michael Saylor spoke openly about who was shaping the future of bitcoin. He indicated that, in a decentrized network, the size of capital per se did not amount to a final decision.
This statement was subsequently relayed by Chief Executive Officer Adam Back. It was reported that Saylor ' s voice was at a very sensitive stage in the community towards potential forklifts and changes to the protocol, prompting attention.
The two proposals were divisive.
The current debate revolved around two proposals. One is BIP-110, which aims to limit chain activities considered to be “trading garbage”, but the way in which some developers promote renewals and whether or not to bypass the miners' consensus has given rise to disagreement.
The other is BIP-361, which focuses on quantum attack protection. The proposal envisages the imposition of restrictions on long-term dormant wallets in order to reduce potential risks from future quantum calculations. It was mentioned that such discussions even involved long-term unused wallets such as the Chinese deaf address, and the controversy was further amplified.
Saylor stressed the three-way balance.
Saylor indicated on X that the influence of Bitcoin derives from a dynamic balance among the three categories of participants: node has the ability to certify transactions, miners provide credit security and currency holders have economic power.
According to him, the modification of the agreement could be truly consensual and accepted by the network only if it was consistent with the three directions of certification, security and capital. In other words, a single large household, company or institution, even if it holds large amounts of bitcoin, cannot decide the course of the agreement alone.
It's hard to rewrite consensus by external pressure.
Saylor also mentioned that pressure at the political, legal or institutional levels can only have indirect effects. These forces can facilitate coordination, pressure or persuasion, but they cannot independently define the Bitcoin consensus from nodes, miners and currency holders.
According to external sources, this statement also echoes the current market pressure on Strategy. The report mentions that Strategy faces large unrealized losses at its average buy-in and current Bitcoin prices, and that Wall Street's questioning of its currency strategy is increasing.
In this context, Sailor ' s statement was both in response to the Bitcoin governance dispute and in reiterating his consistent position that changes in the rules of the network ultimately depended on the agreement ' s participants coming together, rather than on the capital volume or the external environment.