It all makes sense now. The BIP-110 Bros hate Saylor.
Them dunking on Saylor over BIP-110 is fighting a proxy war and pretending it’s about him.
The connection nobody says out loud:
BIP-110 is a values war. Money purists who want ordinals/spam off-chain vs. the financializer camp that treats blockspace as a market. (I completely support this, Bitcoin is money nothing else💰)
Saylor opposed the filter. That’s it. That’s the crime.
But he’s the perfect villain for the thesis: a corp that HOLDS coins, doesn’t transact, doesn’t run a node (visibly), financializes BTC harder than anyone alive. To a pleb running Knots, he’s “Bitcoin captured by suits.”
So “Saylor opposes BIP-110” gets recast as “Saylor wants the spammy, high-fee, institution-serving chain.”
Here’s the part the dunkers skip:
His actual stated reason is a 55% UASF threshold (vs the historical ~95%) that risks a chain split. That’s a legitimate technical concern. Not obviously self interest.
And the kicker the fork is already dead on arrival. ~0.76% signaling. Zero major pools. It fails on its own.
So the FUD isn’t about the proposal. It’s about using his opposition as “proof” their Saylor is co opting Bitcoin thesis was right all along.
Separate two questions:
Why they attack him: tribal/symbolic
Whether he’s actually wrong: debatable on merits
Conflating them is the lazy dunk.