Saylor stressed that the real danger of this action is invalidating currently valid transactions, even as they pay mining fees. He has stressed that spam is not currently a problem for the Bitcoin network.
Key Takeaways
Saylor opposed the BIP-110 fork, warning that changing consensus to stop spam sets a dangerous precedent.Adam Back criticized BIP-110, stating the anti-spam rules conflict with free, permissionless money.Purists support the fork to block non-monetary data, while critics predict a minor long-term impact.“That precedent is the danger. We should save our energy for threats that really matter,” Saylor concluded, agreeing with an earlier post by Hashcash pioneer Adam Back, who qualified the objectives of this fork as “not grounded” and in “hard conflict with free cypherpunk permissionless money.”
