Saylor's 110-Point Case Against BIP-110 Lands as Lock-In Window Nears
Strategy executive chairman Michael Saylor published a detailed takedown of BIP-110 on July 18, arguing the 'Reduced Data Temporary Softfork' is more dangerous than the Ordinals spam it targets. The lock-in window closes at block 961,542 in early August.
Strategy's executive chairman argues the proposal to restrict Bitcoin transaction data sets a consensus precedent that cannot be erased, even after the one-year temp window expires.
Key takeaways
- Michael Saylor published "110 Reasons BIP-110 Is a Bad Idea" on July 18, calling the proposal's core danger the precedent of using consensus rules to invalidate currently valid, fee-paying transactions.
- BIP-110 requires 55% miner-signaling to activate, but support sits well below 2% with the voluntary lock-in deadline at block 961,542 in early August; no major mining pool has committed to signal.
- The debate is opening a new governance dynamic: corporate Bitcoin treasuries, not just developers and node operators, are now active voices in protocol politics.
Strategy executive chairman Michael Saylor published "110 Reasons BIP-110 Is a Bad Idea" on X on July 18, 2026, making the most detailed public case yet against the proposed soft fork that would temporarily cap data embedded in Bitcoin transactions. The timing is pointed: the voluntary miner lock-in deadline for BIP-110 hits at block 961,542, projected for early August 2026, and the proposal is running out of runway fast.
Saylor, whose company holds 843,775 BTC per Strategy's SEC disclosures (tracked via 8-K filings), went out of his way to separate the people from the proposal: "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."
The Argument That Matters
The crux of Saylor's case is that the cure is structurally worse than the condition.
"The proposed cure is more dangerous than the condition," he wrote. "BIP 110 would use consensus to narrow valid activity, constrain future options, complicate deployment, and establish a precedent it cannot later erase."
That last clause carries the weight. BIP-110 is framed as a temporary one-year measure, using seven new consensus rules lasting roughly 52,416 blocks. Saylor's point is that the temporariness is cosmetic: once Bitcoin's consensus mechanism has been used to restrict what counts as a valid transaction based on content, that door stays open. "Bitcoin cannot read intent," he wrote.
He acknowledged the legitimacy of the other side directly: "Many Bitcoiners I respect support BIP 110. They want to keep validation accessible, protect node operators from unwanted costs and content, preserve affordable payments, and keep Bitcoin focused on sound money rather than general-purpose data storage. Those are serious concerns. I share the objectives. I disagree about the remedy."
On July 11, before the full essay, Saylor had already flagged the precedent angle: "BIP 110 turns a spam dispute into a consensus change that would invalidate some currently valid, fee-paying transactions. That precedent is the danger."
BIP-110's Mechanics and Where Signaling Stands
BIP-110, formally titled "Reduced Data Temporary Softfork," was assigned on December 3, 2025 and reached "Complete" status (meaning the authors finished the draft, not that the network adopted it) on June 25, 2026. It was authored pseudonymously by "Dathon Ohm" with Luke Dashjr, co-founder of Ocean mining pool, credited for the original draft and advice.
The proposal uses a 55% miner-signaling threshold, well below the standard 95% threshold used in BIP 9. Despite that lower bar, current support sits below 2%, with nearly all signaling blocks coming from Ocean pool. Foundry USA, AntPool, and F2Pool have not committed to signal; F2Pool has openly opposed the proposal. Bitcoin Core will not integrate BIP-110; only Bitcoin Knots with manual configuration supports it.
BIP editor Mark "Murch" Erhardt, while assigning the proposal its number, described it as "a misguided and unusually careless softfork proposal." Blockstream co-founder Adam Back has also criticized it publicly. The authorship itself is disputed: developer Greg Maxwell alleged Ocean Mining wrote the proposal; Dathon Ohm denied it.
The Ordinals activity driving the urgency argument has also faded. Daily inscriptions on Bitcoin are a fraction of what they once were, down from a peak exceeding 400,000 per day in August 2023, per Dune Analytics data.
The Governance Shift Worth Watching
BIP-110 will almost certainly fail to reach the 55% threshold before block 961,542. The math is straightforward: below 2% signaling, no major pool committed, Bitcoin Core not integrating it, and a dwindling window. That is the likely outcome.
The more durable story is what this debate previews. Saylor is not a developer running a node in a basement. He is the executive chairman of the largest publicly listed Bitcoin treasury company, with fiduciary obligations to shareholders. His incentives point toward a permissionless, liquid Bitcoin that global capital can enter without friction, not a data-restrictive Bitcoin where consensus rules can be tightened based on what the community finds distasteful this cycle.
That is not inherently right or wrong. But it is a new fixture in protocol debates.
Bitcoiners who hold that nodes decide, not corporate chairmen, not essays with hundreds of thousands of views, are correct on the mechanics. The roughly 50,000 listening nodes that enforce consensus are the actual constituency. Saylor's closing line, "Bitcoin does not need guardians of purity. It needs guardians of neutrality," lands cleanest as an argument for running a node and choosing your software, not as a reason to take his word for what Bitcoin should be.
If one or more major pools (Foundry, AntPool, ViaBTC) flip to signaling BIP-110 before the lock-in block, or if a UASF-style user campaign forces a chain split despite minimal miner support, the "Core plus corporate opposition kills it" story becomes a live emergency. That is the trigger. Absent that, BIP-110 dies quietly in August and the governance question it raised moves to the next round.
Sources
Frequently Asked Questions
BIP-110 would impose seven new temporary consensus rules for approximately one year, capping new output scripts at 34 bytes, OP_RETURN outputs at 83 bytes, and data pushes at 256 bytes. The rules target Ordinals inscriptions, BRC-20 tokens, and Runes without naming them explicitly. Pre-existing UTXOs would be exempt from the new restrictions.
Not unilaterally. BIP-110 activates or doesn't based on miner signaling and node enforcement, not essays. But Saylor's public opposition, combined with Bitcoin Core refusing to integrate BIP-110, makes the 55% threshold functionally unreachable unless major mining pools reverse course before block 961,542 in early August.
"Complete" in the BIPs process means the authors finished drafting the proposal. It says nothing about network adoption, miner support, or activation. BIP-110 reached "Complete" status on June 25, 2026. Current miner signaling sits below 2%.
