Strategy executive chairman Michael Saylor published a 110-point essay on X on July 19, 2026, titled “110 Reasons BIP 110 Is a Bad Idea,” arguing Bitcoin should reject the proposed soft fork weeks before its contested activation window opens in August.
What Happened and Why It Matters
BIP-110, formerly called the Reduced Data Temporary Softfork, would introduce seven consensus restrictions on data-heavy transactions for approximately one year, targeting arbitrary data storage such as Ordinal inscriptions while leaving pre-activation outputs unaffected.
First published as BIP-444 in October 2025 after a Bitcoin Core release lifted default OP_RETURN data limits, the proposal is built around a client based on Bitcoin Knots, the node software maintained by Ocean CTO Luke Dashjr, one of its most prominent backers.
Saylor’s essay had drawn more than a million views as his central argument based on the consensus rules cannot reliably judge the purpose behind a valid, fee-paying transaction and should not try, arguing that objectors can decline to use, relay, index, or mine data they consider unwanted rather than changing what counts as valid at the protocol level.
The essay’s final entry recasts the proposal as a “Bitcoin Iatrogenic Proposal,” borrowing the medical term for harm caused by treatment, and closes: “Bitcoin does not need guardians of purity. It needs guardians of neutrality.”
BIP-110 supporters frame the neutrality question differently, arguing that treating arbitrary data storage as a supported use of Bitcoin burdens node operators and crowds out monetary transactions, and that the one-year restriction is a temporary intervention meant to preserve known monetary uses while Bitcoin refocuses on its role as money.
The Activation Fight
Under BIP-110’s deployment schedule, a mandatory signaling period opens near block 961,632, expected around August 7, when enforcing nodes would begin rejecting blocks that fail to signal, with the rules taking effect around September 1 for those nodes.
That’s a notably lower bar than Bitcoin’s conventional soft fork process, which is that BIP-110 requires 55% miner support to lock in, compared to the 95% threshold used in standard deployments. Signaling has remained near zero, accounting for roughly 0.86% of the current difficulty period, and has never exceeded about 1%.
Separately, Ocean vice president Jason Hughes estimated broader node support at 7% to 15% in a guest post for Bitcoin Magazine, arguing the proposal is on track to fail. If signaling stays this low, BIP-110-enforcing nodes would reject nearly all blocks from non-signaling miners during the mandatory window, risking a split onto a minority chain.
Saylor first engaged publicly on July 11, aligning with Blockstream co-founder Adam Back’s opposition to the proposal and warning that enforcing disputed rules without broad support could create fork risks.
Investor and BIP-110 backer Fred Krueger responded to Saylor’s essay with a mirror-image counter-essay listing 110 reasons in favor. Casa co-founder and Bitcoin security researcher Jameson Lopp also weighed in, saying it’s acceptable to “stop respecting” BIP-110 supporters over what he described as poor judgment on the proposal.
For more on how Bitcoin data storage has evolved as Ordinals have evolved, our coverage of the Ordinals platform Ord.io shutting down tracks a related development in that space.
What Comes Next
The dispute lands weeks before the mandatory signaling window opens, with all sides now watching to see whether support for signaling changes before block 961,632. Strategy remains the largest corporate holder of Bitcoin, with 843,775 BTC at an average cost of $75,476 as of its most recent SEC filing.
What this means for you: the practical outcome hinges on whether miner signaling meaningfully increases before the August window, since support sitting near zero, well below the 55% threshold, suggests the proposal will fail to lock in rather than trigger an actual chain split.
Be the first to comment