Michael Saylor Criticizes BIP-110 in 110-Point Essay, Warns of Chain-Split Risk

Michael Saylor publishes 110-point takedown of BIP-110, warns of dangerous precedent Michael Saylor has escalated the debate over BIP-110 with a sprawling 110-point essay titled “110 Reasons BIP 110 Is a Bad Idea,” arguing the proposed soft fork would do more harm than the problem it seeks to solve. Posted on Twitter July 18, Saylor frames his critique as “a case for neutral rules, hard consensus, open markets, and permissionless innovation,” and says he shares proponents’ goals—cheaper validation, affordable payments and keeping Bitcoin focused on sound money—but not their remedy. What BIP-110 would do - BIP-110 would temporarily tighten Bitcoin’s consensus rules (roughly a year) to limit techniques used to embed arbitrary data on-chain. It targets inscriptions and Ordinals—use cases that have crowded block space and contributed to higher fees since 2023. - Backers such as developer Luke Dashjr and the Bitcoin Knots cohort present the proposal as an anti-spam measure. Opponents warn it could reject valid transactions and risk a network split. Saylor’s core objections - Precedent risk: Saylor’s central argument is that Bitcoin “cannot read intent.” The protocol cannot distinguish whether bytes are an image, a proof, a contract, or a future application; restricting storage formats therefore blocks legitimate, unforeseen uses. - “Spam is not a consensus primitive,” he writes—mere disapproval of an on-chain use does not make it invalid. Changing consensus to police one contested use creates a template others could reuse against privacy tools, custody innovations, stablecoin settlement or token systems. That, he says, is a governance risk—not a prediction but a structural vulnerability. - He dubs BIP-110 a “Bitcoin Iatrogenic Proposal”—a cure that risks causing new harm. Technical and activation concerns - Saylor objects to the proposal’s activation design, which lowers the miner-signaling threshold to 55% (vs. the 95% bar used for earlier soft forks) and removes the usual option for a proposal to quietly expire. - According to BIP-110’s monitoring dashboard, signaling has been below 1%, far short of the 55% target. Saylor warns that mismatched enforcement could split the network. Where this places the community - Saylor is aligned with figures such as Blockstream CEO Adam Back, Casa’s Jameson Lopp and Samson Mow in opposing the proposal, setting them against Dashjr and the Knots camp. - BIP-110’s mandatory signaling window opens in August, with activation targeted around September 1—meaning the network and its stakeholders will need to decide quickly whether to accept or reject the change. Broader context: Strategy’s shifting treasury stance - The essay arrives as Saylor’s firm, Strategy, shifts from a “never sell” bitcoin policy to “active capital management.” Strategy has paused Bitcoin purchases while it builds a $3 billion cash reserve to cover stock dividends and debt interest. - Strategy CEO Phong Le recently said the company wouldn’t be worried about its debt unless Bitcoin fell to $8,000–$10,000. On Myriad, a prediction market, users now put only an 8% chance on Strategy holding more than 1 million BTC by year-end—a drop from 17% a week earlier. What to watch - Miner signaling during August’s window. - Any client or node-level enforcement decisions that could cause chain splits. - How other influential Bitcoin developers and companies publicly align as the activation deadline approaches. Saylor’s essay reframes the BIP-110 fight as a debate over Bitcoin’s identity—whether to police particular uses or to preserve neutral rules and hard consensus. With signaling barely registering so far and activation imminent, the proposal is set to be a flashpoint in the ongoing discussion about Bitcoin’s evolution and governance.