TLDR
- Michael Saylor published “110 reasons BIP-110 is a bad idea,” opposing the proposed Bitcoin soft fork
- BIP-110 would temporarily restrict arbitrary data storage on the Bitcoin blockchain for one year
- Saylor argues the proposal threatens Bitcoin’s permissionless nature and sets a censorship precedent
- The proposal would lower miner approval threshold from 95% to 55%, which Saylor calls “too aggressive”
- Saylor says market-based fees and relay policies are better tools to address network spam
Michael Saylor, executive chairman of Strategy, has publicly opposed Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110), publishing a detailed 3,700-word critique on X titled “110 reasons BIP-110 is a bad idea.”
Many Bitcoiners I respect support BIP 110. I understand and share their desire to protect Bitcoin, but believe the proposed cure is more dangerous than the condition. Here are 110 reasons why Bitcoin needs guardians of neutrality. https://t.co/hOAqfAgC58
— Michael Saylor (@saylor) July 19, 2026
BIP-110 was introduced in December 2025 by pseudonymous developer “Dathon Ohm,” with backing from Ocean protocol founder Luke Dashjr. The proposal would add a one-year temporary soft fork placing seven consensus restrictions on the Bitcoin network, including capping data payload sizes.
The goal is to stop Ordinals inscriptions and other non-monetary data from occupying blockchain space, keeping Bitcoin focused on its original purpose as peer-to-peer digital cash.
Saylor says he shares those goals but disagrees with the method. “The proposed cure is more dangerous than the condition,” he wrote.
Why Saylor Opposes the Proposal
His central argument is that Bitcoin cannot determine the intent behind data. “The network cannot know whether bytes represent an image, a proof, a contract, metadata, an authentication record, or a future application,” he wrote.
By labeling certain data as “spam” and blocking it at the protocol level, Saylor argues the network would be inserting human judgment into what should be neutral rules.
He also raised concerns about the proposal’s approval mechanism. BIP-110 would lower the miner support threshold from 95% to 55%, which Saylor described as “too aggressive,” warning it could increase the chances of a network split.
A lower threshold could lead to competing versions of Bitcoin, creating market uncertainty for institutional investors who rely on the network’s stability.
Economic and Innovation Risks
Saylor warned that restricting certain uses of the network could reduce overall fee demand. With Bitcoin’s block subsidy continuing to halve, lower fees could weaken miner incentives and compromise network security.
He also cautioned that BIP-110 could create a “chilling effect” on developers. If data storage is restricted today, privacy tools or corporate applications could be next.
Instead of changing consensus rules, Saylor suggested that market-based fees and individual relay policies are the right tools to manage unwanted data.
Where Things Stand
As of now, BIP-110 is far from activation. It requires 55% of validating nodes to signal support. In the most recent block period, only 1% of blocks supported the proposal.
Opponents include Blockstream CEO Adam Back, who called it a “quest to police other people.” Supporters argue it would not cause a chain split and is only a temporary measure.
Saylor’s post had been viewed 879,000 times by Sunday afternoon. Strategy holds 843,775 Bitcoin, worth approximately $54.31 billion, making it the world’s largest publicly listed Bitcoin treasury firm.
“Bitcoin does not need guardians of purity,” Saylor wrote. “It needs guardians of neutrality.”
Be the first to comment