Adam Back just destroyed the BIP 110 argument with one sentence: “Could you stop spam by modifying TCP/IP?”
No. You couldn’t. And that’s the point.
Source: Adam Back on X
The Test
“Here’s a test for change ideas for Bitcoin to prevent something: If you made the analogous change to TCP/IP to achieve what you’re asking for on Bitcoin, would it work?
Try it out: could you stop spam by modifying TCP/IP?
That’s a useful test as Bitcoin is also ungovernable.”
— Adam Back
This is the single clearest explanation of why BIP 110 is dead on arrival. And it takes 30 seconds to understand.
Why This Analogy Is Perfect
TCP/IP is the foundational protocol of the internet. It was designed to be permissionless. Any computer can send packets to any other computer without asking anyone for permission.
Spam exists because TCP/IP is permissionless. Could you modify TCP/IP to stop spam? Sure, in theory. You’d add a rule: “only authorized senders can send email.” But then it wouldn’t be TCP/IP anymore. It would be a centralized network that requires permission to participate. That’s not the internet — that’s AOL.
Bitcoin is the same. Could you modify Bitcoin to “stop spam” (however you define it)? You’d have to add a rule: “only approved transactions are valid.” But then it wouldn’t be Bitcoin. It would be a permissioned ledger controlled by whoever decides what “spam” is.
The BIP 110 Delusion
BIP 110 supporters want to police other people’s transactions. They want to decide what’s “useful” and what’s “spam.” They want to centralize transaction validation authority.
Adam Back’s TCP/IP test exposes why this is fundamentally incompatible with Bitcoin. You can’t have permissionless money AND police what people do with it. Pick one.
Bitcoin’s Immune System Is Working
Bitcoin rejected BIP 110 for the same reason the internet rejected “permission to send packets.” The system is designed to resist changes that would break its core properties.
Adam Back has been making this point consistently throughout the BIP 110 debate. His message to supporters is clear: you don’t understand the system you’re trying to change. And if you think you can modify Bitcoin without breaking what makes it special, you’re wrong.
The Unspoken Truth
BIP 110 supporters think they’re fighting for Bitcoin’s integrity. They’re actually fighting against Bitcoin’s fundamental architecture. The very thing they want to “fix” — permissionless transaction relay — is what makes Bitcoin valuable in the first place.
Spam on Bitcoin is a feature of permissionless money, not a bug. The solution isn’t to police transactions. It’s to price block space appropriately through fees. Which is exactly what Bitcoin already does.
What Adam Back Is Really Saying
He’s saying: if you can’t even stop spam on the internet by changing TCP/IP, what makes you think you can stop “spam” on Bitcoin by changing its core protocol?
The answer is you can’t. And the sooner BIP 110 supporters understand this, the sooner they can either get with the program or fork off and learn the hard way.
Bitcoin is ungovernable. That’s not a bug. That’s the whole point.
ADAM BACK JUST DESTROYED BIP 110 WITH ONE QUESTION: COULD YOU STOP SPAM BY CHANGING TCP/IP?
