By Thomas Young (@tomyoungjr)
Why I Support BIP-110
The BIP-110 debate is being framed as a technical argument.
I think that's the wrong level of analysis.
The question isn't whether a particular proposal reduces spam, improves efficiency, or changes OP_RETURN limits. Those are implementation details.
The real question is this:
Who gets to shape Bitcoin's future?
Bitcoin has become increasingly accepted by the financial establishment, but largely as digital gold. An ETF. A portfolio allocation. A store of value.
That version of Bitcoin is compatible with the existing financial system.
A Bitcoin that evolves into a neutral global monetary network, one capable of settling value outside traditional sovereign control, is a very different proposition.
Today, Bitcoin isn't an existential threat to the fiat system.
Ten or fifteen years from now, if adoption continues, it could become one.
If you believed that future was possible, wouldn't you prefer to influence Bitcoin's trajectory long before it reached that point?
That's why I think debates like BIP-110 matter. Not necessarily because of the proposal itself, but because they reveal a deeper struggle over governance and direction.
The same thought crosses my mind when I see large industry consortiums organizing around Bitcoin's future, whether it's quantum resistance or other protocol changes.
Corporate incentives and Bitcoin incentives are not always the same.
A corporation may be perfectly happy with Bitcoin as a $20 trillion digital commodity.
Many Bitcoiners believe its ultimate purpose is something much larger: a sovereign monetary network.
Those are two very different end states.
The technical debates are important. But I suspect the strategic debate -who ultimately steers Bitcoin, and toward what destination - is the one we'll look back on as defining this era.
Why I Support BIP-110
The BIP-110 debate is being framed as a technical argument.
I think that's the wrong level of analysis.
The question isn't whether a particular proposal reduces spam, improves efficiency, or changes OP_RETURN limits. Those are implementation details.
The real question is this:
Who gets to shape Bitcoin's future?
Bitcoin has become increasingly accepted by the financial establishment, but largely as digital gold. An ETF. A portfolio allocation. A store of value.
That version of Bitcoin is compatible with the existing financial system.
A Bitcoin that evolves into a neutral global monetary network, one capable of settling value outside traditional sovereign control, is a very different proposition.
Today, Bitcoin isn't an existential threat to the fiat system.
Ten or fifteen years from now, if adoption continues, it could become one.
If you believed that future was possible, wouldn't you prefer to influence Bitcoin's trajectory long before it reached that point?
That's why I think debates like BIP-110 matter. Not necessarily because of the proposal itself, but because they reveal a deeper struggle over governance and direction.
The same thought crosses my mind when I see large industry consortiums organizing around Bitcoin's future, whether it's quantum resistance or other protocol changes.
Corporate incentives and Bitcoin incentives are not always the same.
A corporation may be perfectly happy with Bitcoin as a $20 trillion digital commodity.
Many Bitcoiners believe its ultimate purpose is something much larger: a sovereign monetary network.
Those are two very different end states.
The technical debates are important. But I suspect the strategic debate -who ultimately steers Bitcoin, and toward what destination - is the one we'll look back on as defining this era.
109❤️6🤙2👍1
