Thanks to @tauri for this:
BIP110 is not an improvement protocol in the traditional sense. Normally, a BIP exists to optimize or expand a feature that is already functioning as intended. That is not what BIP110 is trying to do. BIP110 is attempting to correct behaviors that undermine long-standing design assumptions of Bitcoin. It is less about adding functionality and more about preserving the conditions that allow Bitcoin to function as sovereign, verifiable money. The real risk here is not stagnation, it is gradual drift in protocol norms and network culture that quietly changes what Bitcoin is optimized for.
The argument that BIP110 does not improve Bitcoin’s moneyness misses a lot of nuances. Money derives its strength from reliability, predictability, and broad verification accessibility. Monetary premium depends heavily on trust minimization and the ability for individuals to independently verify the ledger. When the network begins incentivizing large amounts of arbitrary data storage, it introduces new costs and new legal and operational attack surfaces that are unrelated to monetary settlement. Historically, the strongest forms of money are those that remain narrowly focused on settlement rather than attempting to serve as multipurpose infrastructure. Gold maintained monetary dominance not because it was the most versatile metal, but because its primary function remained monetary settlement. Bitcoin’s value proposition follows a similar logic.
The stenography defense also ignores the incentive asymmetry being created. When actors can embed large volumes of arbitrary data at minimal cost, node operators become involuntary custodians of that data indefinitely. The economic burden of long-term storage and validation is socialized across the network, while the economic upside is captured privately by those monetizing inscriptions, rare sats, or similar mechanisms. Bitcoin’s fee market is supposed to align cost with resource consumption. When that alignment weakens, the result is gradual pressure toward node centralization and higher barriers to independent verification. That is not a theoretical concern, in fact it strikes directly at Bitcoin’s core security model.
There is also a practical operational impact. Excess arbitrary data competes for blockspace and validation resources that would otherwise serve monetary settlement. Over time, this degrades node efficiency and increases the hardware and bandwidth requirements required to fully participate in the network. Bitcoin’s resilience depends on keeping verification cheap and widely distributed. Every increase in baseline validation cost moves the system slightly closer to reliance on specialized infrastructure.
The claims regarding mining decentralization and Libre Relay are naively misplaced. Mining centralization is primarily driven by reward distribution models like FPPS, which concentrate risk management and capital requirements inside large pools. Mempool policy tightening does not create this centralization dynamic. If anything, reducing externalities in block construction can help align incentives more closely with efficient transaction selection. Solutions like DATUM directly target mining centralization by reducing reliance on centralized block template construction and enabling miners to participate more independently. That addresses the actual structural cause rather than peripheral symptoms.
The points raised about Cashu and OP_SUCCESS also miss the broader prioritization question. Cashu introduces alternative trust tradeoffs that may improve convenience or privacy in specific contexts, but it does not fundamentally expand Bitcoin’s core settlement guarantees beyond what layered solutions like Lightning already provide. OP_SUCCESS may enable certain specialized use cases, such as inheritance mechanisms, but those applications remain niche and can be implemented through other mechanisms without expanding the base layer’s attack surface. Bitcoin’s base layer has historically erred on the side of minimalism precisely because every opcode and every feature becomes a permanent consensus commitment with unpredictable long-term consequences.
Every capability targeted by BIP110 represents either a demonstrated or plausible vector for resource externalization and protocol abuse. When systemic abuse is tolerated, the network becomes harder to verify, more expensive to operate, and more vulnerable to regulatory and infrastructure capture. Meaningful innovation is difficult to build on top of a deteriorating base layer. BIP110 attempts to stabilize that foundation by tightening rules that reinforce Bitcoin’s original security and incentive model.
@bip 110 @tauri
