IDK if this is the right question, but I asked Grok "does Bip-110 help or hinder a move towards layered storage?" answer below I tend to fall in the camp of Optimistic View below. The other problem that Grok isn't even taking into consideration is a bad actor poisoning the network with illicit content--which is why this debate annoyingly comes back to "p**do this and that" because what would be good design is not taking into account evil human behavior. and this seems to be a blindspot for a lot of people. ---Grok Slop--- *How BIP-110 Could Help Layered Storage (The Optimistic View)* --It temporarily raises the cost and friction of on-chain data storage (by limiting large pushes, OP_RETURN size, certain Taproot patterns, etc.). --In theory, this could push people toward off-chain or layered solutions faster (e.g., anchoring hashes on Bitcoin while storing actual data on IPFS, Arweave, Filecoin, or dedicated Bitcoin L2s). --It signals “Bitcoin base layer is for money, not bulk storage,” which aligns philosophically with layered architecture. *Why It Mostly Hinders a Good Transition:* --Creates uncertainty and precedent risk: A temporary consensus change that invalidates currently valid transactions makes developers and users wary of building on Bitcoin. Why invest in layered solutions if the rules can suddenly tighten via social pressure? --Disrupts ongoing innovation on Taproot: Many layered approaches (e.g., advanced commitments, BitVM-style constructs, better inscription protocols, Taproot Assets) rely on the flexible scripting that BIP-110 restricts. It freezes experimentation for a year. --Doesn’t actually solve the root problem cleanly: Existing data stays forever (grandfathered), and determined users can work around the limits with smaller/split pieces. It adds governance friction without a clean “migrate to layers” path. --Pushes adversarial dynamics: Instead of organic fee-market pressure encouraging layers, it creates a culture war (“spam vs. money”). This makes coordinated upgrades harder, including ones that would genuinely enable better layering (e.g., prunable data regions or improved anchoring). --Opportunity cost: Energy spent debating/fighting BIP-110 distracts from positive proposals like SegData (prunable data blocks), better L2 designs, or improvements to Lightning/Taproot for efficient commitments.