Michael Saylor releases ‘110 reasons’ against controversial Bitcoin BIP-110
Michael Saylor opposes Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110), also known as the “Reduced Data Temporary Softfork,” as executive chairman of the largest corporate Bitcoin holder. “
Over July 18-19, 2026, Saylor published “110 reasons” across X (formerly Twitter), arguing that the proposed temporary soft fork, authored by pseudonymous Bitcoin developer Dathon Ohm, presents a greater threat to the network’s foundational neutrality and core principles than the “spam” it aims to mitigate.
Saylor’s uncompromising stance on Bitcoin neutrality
The contentious BIP-110 was introduced in December 2025 and reached “Complete” status on GitHub by June 2026. This proposal seeks to temporarily limit non-financial data embedded in Bitcoin transactions. Its primary intent is to curb the proliferation of what some consider “spam” data, such as Ordinals, inscriptions, and non-fungible token (NFT) related information on the blockchain.
Proponents, including Ocean protocol founder Luke Dashjr, contend these data types significantly inflate blockchain size. They argue this places an undue burden on full-node operators, who face substantial storage and bandwidth requirements, needing to download an initial 600 GB and an additional 5-10 GB monthly.
Their ultimate aim is to preserve Bitcoin’s original vision as a pure peer-to-peer electronic cash system and “sound money,” rather than allowing it to evolve into a general-purpose data storage platform.
Michael Saylor’s opposition isn’t merely a technical quibble; it’s rooted deeply in his unwavering belief in Bitcoin’s core tenets as a neutral, censorship-resistant protocol. He argues that any attempt to alter consensus rules based on subjective definitions of “spam” inevitably introduces a dangerous and slippery precedent for protocol-level censorship.
For Saylor, this directly undermines the network’s crucial neutrality, a characteristic he views as fundamental to its long-term value proposition and global adoption.
This staunch perspective clashes sharply with the intentions of BIP-110’s supporters, who genuinely see the proposal as a necessary measure to protect the network’s utility and maintain low transaction fees. Saylor, however, warns that such actions could lead Bitcoin down a perilous path where certain types of transactions become subject to arbitrary judgment and exclusion.
He maintains that true decentralization and permissionless innovation require a system that treats all valid transactions equally, regardless of their embedded data or perceived purpose.
Technical risks and unmeasured economic costs
Beyond the philosophical disagreements, Saylor highlights significant technical risks and practical drawbacks associated with BIP-110. He points out that the proposal would invalidate certain currently valid, fee-paying transactions, which users have already initiated and paid for. This outcome directly contradicts the expectation that all legitimate transactions, compliant with current rules, should be processed by the network without interference.
Saylor also contends that BIP-110 would effectively close several reserved technical options within the Bitcoin protocol. This pre-emptive closure of design space could hinder the development of future innovations, such as advanced BitVM-style contracting, by preemptively locking off potential upgrade paths. He argues that this adds unnecessary complexity and rigidity to the network’s future evolution, limiting its adaptability.
Furthermore, Saylor has sharply criticized the fundamental premise of the proposal’s cost-saving claims. He refers to the proposed changes as a “blunt proxy for a cost nobody has actually measured,” implying a lack of rigorous economic analysis. He believes that the supposed burden of non-financial data on the network hasn’t been adequately quantified, making the proposed solution speculative and potentially harmful without clear, data-driven justification.
This lack of precise cost measurement, from Saylor’s perspective, makes BIP-110 an ill-advised intervention. He suggests that the perceived problem might be exaggerated or solvable through other market-based mechanisms, rather than a top-down protocol change. Imposing new rules without concrete evidence of significant harm could create more problems than it solves.
Controversy around BIP-110’s activation threshold
One of the most contentious aspects of BIP-110 revolves around its proposed activation mechanism and the associated risks. The plan specifies a 55% miner signaling threshold over a 2,016-block period, a figure that is considerably lower than what’s typically required for permanent, fundamental changes to Bitcoin’s consensus rules.
Traditional, more robust changes often demand a supermajority, such as a 95% threshold, to ensure broad network support and mitigate dissent.
This substantially lower threshold significantly elevates the risk of a chain split, according to Saylor and other prominent critics. Such a split could fragment the Bitcoin network, creating two distinct, incompatible versions of the blockchain, each with its own set of rules and ledger.
This scenario could lead to widespread chaos, potential devaluation of Bitcoin on one or both chains, and significant operational challenges for exchanges, wallets, and users.
Saylor views this reduced consensus requirement as a reckless and potentially opportunistic move, bypassing the caution usually exercised for fundamental protocol modifications. He believes it represents a dangerous precedent for Bitcoin governance, allowing specific use-case preferences to override the network’s long-term stability and unified operation.
This, he claims, is an unacceptable intervention that prioritizes a vocal minority over the broader consensus principles that have historically guided Bitcoin’s development.
Other prominent voices join the criticism
Michael Saylor isn’t a lone voice in his vociferous opposition to BIP-110; other influential figures in the Bitcoin space have also raised serious and detailed concerns. Blockstream CEO Adam Back, a cryptographer and early contributor to Bitcoin, has openly criticized the proposal.
He asserts that BIP-110’s anti-spam rules fundamentally conflict with the ethos of free, permissionless money, which is central to Bitcoin’s design. Back emphasizes that Bitcoin’s strength and utility derive from its uncensorable and open nature, allowing anyone to transact freely.
Adding to the growing apprehension, Greg Maxwell, a long-standing Bitcoin Core developer, warned that BIP-110 could inadvertently invalidate legitimate pre-signed or time-locked transactions. These sophisticated transaction types are essential for a variety of complex and crucial Bitcoin applications, including advanced payment channels and multi-signature schemes. Their invalidation would cause significant operational disruption across the ecosystem, impacting users and developers alike.
Developer Peter Todd has also weighed in forcefully, presenting four distinct technical criticisms of BIP-110. Among his key concerns is the high probability of a chain split, directly echoing Saylor’s fears about network fragmentation and the potential for a contentious hard fork scenario.
These collective warnings from respected technical experts and thought leaders underscore the deep divisions and potential perils surrounding the proposed temporary soft fork, suggesting it might create more problems than it solves.
The road ahead for BIP-110 and the network’s future
BIP-110, introduced in December 2025, is architected as a temporary soft fork, explicitly designed to operate for approximately one year if it successfully activates. The proposal outlines seven new consensus rules specifically aimed at restricting data embedding. These technical specifications include limiting OP_RETURN outputs to a maximum of 83 bytes and capping several payloads and witness items at 256 bytes.
Despite reaching “Complete” status on GitHub by June 2026, indicating its readiness for implementation, the proposal has yet to garner significant support from the Bitcoin mining community. As of the most recent snapshot on July 13, 2026, miner signaling for BIP-110 stood at an exceptionally low 1.3%.
This figure indicates a widespread reluctance or lack of interest within the mining community to adopt the sweeping changes proposed by Dathon Ohm and his supporters.
The coming weeks will undoubtedly prove critical for the fate of BIP-110, with a voluntary signaling deadline anticipated in August 2026. This pivotal moment is tied to block 961,542. The Bitcoin community now watches closely to determine whether developer and miner sentiment will shift dramatically before this deadline.
The outcome will ultimately dictate if BIP-110 moves forward, potentially triggering a contentious debate, or if Michael Saylor’s “110 reasons” have effectively halted its progress and preserved Bitcoin’s existing neutrality.