According to foreign media, the co-founder and Executive Director of Strategy, Michael Seller, has recently publicly opposed the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal BIP-110. In his view, the programme, which was designed to limit “spam data” along the chain, was not only a technical adjustment but could also change the way bitcoin operated in a manner that treated all legitimate activities equally.
The proposal is to limit arbitrary data in the chain
According to reports, BIP-110 plans to introduce a number of new consensus restrictions through a one-year temporary soft fork, including the compression of data loads that can be written into blocks and the rejection of partial script execution. Supporters would like to use this to focus bitcoin more on monetary functions than on general data storage.
The point of contention was that such restrictions would be directly included in the consensus layer and would no longer be a mere node or re-entry option. In Seller's view, Bitcoin itself cannot judge whether a byte is a picture, a certificate, a contractual metadata or a part of a future application, and therefore the “spam data” is underlined in essence to include artificial judgement in the protocol rules.
55%.
Another controversial point mentioned in the article was the upgrading of the activation threshold. Unlike the 95% signal threshold for miners that is common in bitcoin, the proposal proposes to lower the threshold to 55%.
In Seller ' s view, this approach is too radical and could magnify community differences and increase the risk of networks being fragmented into multiple versions. He noted that one of the important reasons why agency funding valued bitcoin was that its rules were stable and did not require permission. This prospect of stability could be undermined if consensus rules were more easily rewritten in disputes.
As of Sunday, Strategy held 843,775 BTCs with a value of approximately $5,431,000. As one of the world ' s largest listed Bitcoin Treasury companies, Seller ' s statement also raised the temperature of this discussion around the limits of its use.
Sailer advocates cost and relay strategy.
In the alternative, Seller did not support the direct “clean-up” of data through the consensus layer. In his view, it would be more appropriate to rely on the cost-market and node-relay strategies to handle congestion or garbage information.
Along these lines, if a certain type of transaction is unpopular, the nodal operator is free to choose whether or not to continue, and the user is sifted from the market at a higher cost, without the need to modify the bottom-up rules that all must adhere to.
He also warned that if today ' s restrictions were on data writing, the target audience for the future might be extended to privacy tools, new hosting programmes or enterprise-level applications. At the same time, if partial use of the scene is suppressed, there may also be a decrease in the demand for total processing fees along the chain. In the context of the continued halving of block subsidies, the income of miners is under pressure, which in turn affects the security of computing inputs and networks.
At the end of the text, Syller grouped the debate as “neutral” rather than “pure”. In his view, Bitcoin did not need to be left to decide which uses were more pure, but rather to maintain an open, non-licensed and rule-based network.