Michael Saylor Rejects BIP-110 with '110 Reasons,' Citing Bitcoin Neutrality Risk

Michael Saylor, Chairman of Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) and a prominent figure in the Bitcoin ecosystem, has taken a firm stance against Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110). Saylor released a comprehensive statement outlining “110 reasons” for his opposition to the proposal, also known as the “Reduced Data Temporary Softfork.” He argued that the proposal would use Bitcoin's core consensus rules to restrict controversial but currently valid transactions, amounting to a governance intervention over use cases.

BIP-110 was introduced by pseudonymous developer Dathon Ohm with the support of Luke Dashjr and was listed as complete on GitHub in June 2026. Designed to run for approximately one year, the proposal aims to temporarily restrict non-monetary transactions and arbitrary data, such as Ordinals inscriptions, on the Bitcoin network. It introduces seven new consensus restrictions, including byte limits on OP_RETURN outputs, payload and witness items, and Taproot-related structures. The stated goal of BIP-110 is to correct distorted incentives caused by standardizing support for arbitrary data and to refocus Bitcoin's primary purpose as a monetary system.

While Michael Saylor stated he shares the objectives behind BIP-110, such as protecting node operators from unnecessary costs and keeping payments affordable, he fundamentally disagrees with the proposed remedy. Saylor contends that changing Bitcoin's core transaction rules to block what some consider “spam” sets a dangerous precedent, potentially invalidating currently valid, fee-paying transactions. He further highlights that the proposal's reliance on a 55% miner signaling threshold, which is lower than the standard BIP 9's 95% threshold, increases the risk of a chain split for controversial rule changes and could negatively impact miner fee revenue and long-term network security.

Saylor asserts that Bitcoin's existing relay and mining strategy tools already allow node operators and miners to limit unwanted transaction types without altering network-wide consensus rules. He advocates for the Bitcoin base layer to remain conservative, emphasizing the importance of neutral rules, hard consensus, open markets, and permissionless innovation. Additionally, Saylor warns that the proposal could close off future upgrade paths, such as BitVM-style contracting, and introduce unnecessary complexity into the network.

This debate marks one of the most significant protocol-level disputes within the Bitcoin development community since the “Blocksize Wars” between 2015 and 2017. The opposition from key figures like Saylor and Blockstream co-founder Adam Back strengthens criticisms regarding censorship concerns and potential conflicts with Bitcoin's decentralized design. Mining giants like Foundry are also engaging in the discussion, asking miners to vote on BIP-110.

Despite the strong opposition, Bitcoin's (BTC) price has shown relatively little immediate reaction, trading near the $64,280 level. Market analysts view this discussion as a philosophical governance question for Bitcoin's future rather than a short-term price catalyst. The activation of the proposal remains uncertain, as it requires 55% support from Bitcoin nodes validating blocks. Saylor's stance reignites a broader debate about whether Bitcoin should remain a “boring and predictable” base layer or adapt to regulate specific use cases.