Bitcoin’s internal debate over network “spam” and the place of Ordinals has flared again, with MicroStrategy executive chairman Michael Saylor publicly arguing against a proposed protocol change known as BIP-110. In a long post on X published Sunday, Saylor laid out a broad case against activating the temporary fork, warning that the remedy could undermine the principles he associates with Bitcoin’s neutrality and permissionless innovation.
The proposal, first introduced in December 2025, aims to reduce non-monetary transaction behavior—particularly data associated with Ordinals inscriptions—by changing how certain data is handled by validating nodes. While proponents frame it as protection for Bitcoin’s function as peer-to-peer cash, Saylor said he shares those objectives but disagrees with the approach.
Key takeaways
- Michael Saylor opposes BIP-110 despite acknowledging concerns about Ordinals-style network bloat.
- BIP-110 would require broad node support to activate, with the last measured cycle showing only around 1% of blocks signaling approval.
- Ordinals activity has fallen sharply from its 2023 peak, with recent daily inscriptions reported as under 10,000.
- The dispute echoes earlier Bitcoin governance clashes, including the Blocksize Wars era.
- Major figures remain split: supporters argue it avoids long-term disruption, while critics call it social enforcement rather than neutral protocol design.
Saylor’s critique of BIP-110’s “temporary fork”
Saylor described BIP-110 as a bad idea in an extended post on X, presenting a framework centered on “neutral rules, hard consensus, open markets, and permissionless innovation.” He also emphasized that his critique is directed at the proposal itself, not the people who support it.
According to Saylor, some Bitcoiners he respects back BIP-110 to keep validation affordable for node operators, maintain access to the validation process, preserve low-cost payments, and prevent Bitcoin from drifting into a general-purpose data storage system. He said those are serious concerns—but that the planned remedy is not the right one.
“This article critiques the proposal, not the people behind it. I assume good faith. Bitcoin is strongest when we can disagree vigorously without mistaking allies for enemies.”
As of 12 p.m. ET Sunday, the post had reportedly generated 879,000 views on X, along with 692 replies and 852 retweets.
Why activation is uncertain: node signaling remains low
Even if BIP-110 has passionate supporters, activation would not be automatic. The proposal is designed to proceed only if 55% of Bitcoin nodes validating blocks signal support across a Bitcoin “period.”
In the most recently referenced period, period number 475 (covering blocks 955,584 through 957,599), only about 1% of blocks were reportedly in support. That suggests the proposal currently lacks the consensus threshold needed to move forward.
For investors and traders following protocol governance, the key question is not whether arguments for and against BIP-110 are strong, but whether enough of the ecosystem will converge on a shared view quickly enough to clear the activation hurdle. Low signaling so far implies BIP-110 remains in a “discussion” phase rather than a near-term change likely to land.
Ordinals activity has cooled—so what’s the urgency now?
The conflict over Ordinals and other inscription-style behavior is unfolding at a time when on-chain activity appears to have materially cooled. The reporting cited that in the last month there have been fewer than 10,000 Ordinals inscribed per day, according to Dune Analytics.
That figure stands in stark contrast to the period of peak activity in August 2023, when the same metric reportedly exceeded 400,000 daily inscriptions. The current backdrop complicates the “immediate fix” argument advanced by BIP-110 supporters, because network pressure may not be at the same level as during the earlier surge.
Still, supporters contend that the trend could return—or that even without today’s worst-case bloat, maintaining Bitcoin’s long-term usability requires setting clearer boundaries now. Critics, meanwhile, argue that protocol-level “policing” risks turning Bitcoin’s decentralized norms into a contest of preferences.
The personalities and the governance parallels
BIP-110 is notable not only for its technical objectives, but also for the lineup behind it. The proposal was introduced by pseudonymous Bitcoin developer “Dathon Ohm” and reportedly has support from Ocean protocol founder Luke Dashjr. Opponents include Blockstream CEO Adam Back.
Earlier coverage cited that Dashjr and other supporters view Ordinals-driven bloat as a serious threat and argue BIP-110 would not trigger the chain split many fear. They also point to the fork’s design as temporary—described as a one-year limit—claiming it would not invalidate fee-paying transactions over the long term.
Critics reject those characterizations. Back has previously described BIP-110 as a “quest to police other people,” arguing that Bitcoin’s decentralization should prevent one group from imposing its preferences on others. In his framing, the proposal conflicts with what he portrays as Bitcoin’s cypherpunk ethos of permissionless, censorship-resistant money.
Observers have also drawn historical parallels to the Blocksize Wars of 2015–2017, when Bitcoin’s community debated whether raising the block size limit would be worth the risk of a chain split. Like that earlier period, the BIP-110 conflict is fundamentally about governance: who gets to decide what the network should optimize for, and through what mechanism.
What to watch next
The next decisive signal will be whether BIP-110’s support rises meaningfully toward the 55% threshold across future block periods. With Ordinals activity currently reported as far below earlier peaks, the debate may shift from “stop a present-day emergency” to “define Bitcoin’s long-term scope”—and readers should watch for how node signaling changes alongside that evolving narrative.
Be the first to comment