The core of this controversy is not technical details, but rather "who sets the rules" for Bitcoin: BIP-110 attempts to promote a temporary soft fork with a lower threshold, while Saylor believes this would turn "effectively functioning transactions in the fee market" into subjects of political voting, thus setting a dangerous precedent.

Similar cases can be compared to the early activation debates of SegWit and Taproot, but BIP-110's sharper point is that it introduces a "mandatory signaling window"; without broad consensus, executing nodes will reject non-signaled blocks, making it easier for disputes to escalate into chain-splitting risks compared to traditional soft forks.

In terms of capital pathways, current support is concentrated in OCEAN and a few independent miners, while mainstream mining pools like Foundry, Antpool, ViaBTC, and F2Pool have yet to switch, indicating that miners have not formed a unified commercial incentive; if mainstream pools do not express their stance, BIP-110 resembles a governance experiment of a niche camp rather than a network-level upgrade.

Essentially, this belongs to the "protocol governance layering" within regulatory changes: it is not state regulation, but rather on-chain rule regulation; the mechanism's reason is that Bitcoin lacks a centralized decision-maker, and any proposal attempting to modify the foundational rules in the name of "morality or order" ultimately faces a triple vote from miners, nodes, and the economy.

ABAB News · Laws of Cognition

The rules of Bitcoin cannot be changed by just anyone.
A support rate of 2.7% indicates that consensus has not yet begun.
When governance turns into voting, a fork is already on the way.