Key Takeaways
Strategy’s Michael Saylor released a comprehensive 3,700-word document outlining “110 reasons BIP-110 is a bad idea”
The proposed soft fork seeks to impose temporary one-year limitations on arbitrary data stored within Bitcoin blocks
Saylor contends the measure compromises Bitcoin’s foundational permissionless architecture and establishes dangerous precedents
BIP-110 reduces the activation threshold from 95% to 55% miner approval, which Saylor considers recklessly low
According to Saylor, existing market-driven fee mechanisms and node relay preferences offer superior solutions to network congestion
Strategy’s executive chairman Michael Saylor has issued a forceful rejection of Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110), releasing an extensive 3,700-word analysis on X under the heading “110 reasons BIP-110 is a bad idea.”
Unveiled in December 2025 by a pseudonymous developer operating under the name “Dathon Ohm” and endorsed by Ocean protocol’s Luke Dashjr, BIP-110 proposes implementing a time-limited soft fork that would establish seven consensus-layer constraints on the Bitcoin network, notably limiting data payload capacities.
The primary objective centers on preventing Ordinals inscriptions and similar non-financial data from consuming valuable blockchain capacity, thereby preserving Bitcoin‘s fundamental role as a decentralized peer-to-peer payment system.
While Saylor acknowledges alignment with these underlying objectives, he fundamentally disagrees with the execution strategy. “The proposed cure is more dangerous than the condition,” he stated in his critique.
Saylor’s Core Arguments Against BIP-110
The foundation of his opposition rests on Bitcoin’s inability to distinguish data purpose. “The network cannot know whether bytes represent an image, a proof, a contract, metadata, an authentication record, or a future application,” he explained.
Through categorizing specific data types as “spam” and prohibiting them at the consensus layer, Saylor contends the network would be injecting subjective interpretation into what must remain objective protocol rules.
He further highlighted concerns regarding the proposal’s activation methodology. BIP-110 would reduce the required miner consensus from 95% to 55%, a change Saylor characterized as “too aggressive,” cautioning it substantially elevates the risk of blockchain fragmentation.
This reduced threshold could result in divergent Bitcoin implementations, introducing significant market instability for institutional stakeholders who depend on network predictability.
Financial and Development Concerns
Saylor emphasized that limiting specific network applications could diminish aggregate transaction fee revenue. Given Bitcoin’s programmed subsidy reductions through halvings, declining fee income threatens miner profitability and ultimately network security.
He additionally warned that BIP-110 risks creating a “chilling effect” across the development ecosystem. If arbitrary data storage faces restrictions now, privacy-enhancing technologies or enterprise blockchain applications might face similar censorship later.
Rather than modifying fundamental consensus mechanisms, Saylor advocated that organic fee market dynamics and node-level relay configuration represent appropriate instruments for managing undesirable transactions.
Current Status of BIP-110
Presently, BIP-110 remains distant from implementation. The proposal demands 55% signaling support among validating nodes. During the latest measurement period, merely 1% of mined blocks indicated approval.
Critics include Blockstream’s CEO Adam Back, who characterized it as a “quest to police other people.” Proponents maintain the measure wouldn’t trigger chain fragmentation and represents merely a temporary intervention.
Saylor’s critique had accumulated 879,000 views by Sunday afternoon. Strategy maintains possession of 843,775 Bitcoin, valued at roughly $54.31 billion, establishing it as the planet’s largest publicly traded corporate Bitcoin holder.
“Bitcoin does not need guardians of purity,” Saylor wrote. “It needs guardians of neutrality.”
