Michael Saylor Pushes Back Against BIP-110, Calls for Bitcoin’s Open and Neutral Future
Michael Saylor has publicly criticized Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110), arguing that while its supporters have valid concerns about network efficiency, the proposed temporary fork is not the right way to address them.
In a lengthy post shared on X, the Strategy executive chairman outlined what he called "110 reasons" to oppose the proposal, emphasizing that Bitcoin should remain guided by neutral rules, open markets, and permissionless innovation rather than protocol-level restrictions.
BIP-110, introduced in late 2025 by pseudonymous developer Dathon Ohm with backing from Ocean founder Luke Dashjr, seeks to temporarily restrict non-financial data on the Bitcoin blockchain. The proposal aims to reduce blockchain congestion caused by Ordinals inscriptions and similar data, arguing that Bitcoin should prioritize its role as a decentralized monetary network.
Saylor acknowledged that many respected members of the Bitcoin community support the proposal for legitimate reasons. According to him, advocates are trying to keep node operation affordable, reduce unnecessary storage costs, and preserve Bitcoin's focus as digital money.
However, he believes the proposed fix introduces unnecessary risks.
Rather than changing consensus rules to limit how users interact with the network, Saylor argued Bitcoin should continue relying on predictable and neutral policies that allow innovation without permission. He warned that altering consensus to target specific use cases could undermine the principles that have made Bitcoin resilient for more than a decade.
The debate surrounding BIP-110 has become one of the biggest technical disagreements within the Bitcoin ecosystem in recent years. Many developers have compared its significance to the Blocksize Wars of 2015–2017, when disagreements over scaling divided the community and ultimately led to multiple Bitcoin forks.
The proposal has also created clear divisions among prominent Bitcoin figures.
Luke Dashjr has repeatedly argued that data-heavy applications such as Ordinals create unnecessary blockchain bloat and increase operating costs for node operators. Supporters believe temporarily limiting these transactions would strengthen Bitcoin's long-term health without permanently restricting legitimate activity.
Others disagree.
Blockstream CEO Adam Back has been among the proposal's most vocal critics, arguing that Bitcoin's decentralized nature means no group should decide which transactions are acceptable. He has described attempts to restrict specific uses of block space as contrary to Bitcoin's censorship-resistant philosophy.
Despite the growing discussion, support for activating BIP-110 remains extremely limited.
Under the proposal's activation process, at least 55% of validating Bitcoin nodes would need to signal support during a designated block period before the changes could move forward. The latest signaling data shows only about 1% of blocks indicating support, leaving the proposal far from the required threshold.
The timing of the debate is also notable because Ordinals activity has slowed dramatically compared with its peak. Daily inscriptions have fallen to fewer than 10,000 over the past month, a steep decline from the more than 400,000 recorded during the height of the Ordinals boom in 2023.
Even so, supporters of BIP-110 argue that the decline in activity does not eliminate the underlying issue. They maintain that the network should proactively address spam-like data before it becomes a larger problem again.
Backers also reject concerns that BIP-110 would split the Bitcoin blockchain. They say the proposal is designed as a temporary, one-year measure that would not permanently invalidate fee-paying transactions or create lasting incompatibilities across the network.
For now, however, the proposal appears unlikely to advance without a significant shift in community support. As discussions continue, the disagreement highlights the ongoing challenge of balancing Bitcoin's open design with efforts to preserve its original purpose as a decentralized financial system.