TL;DR
- Michael Saylor’s 110-point essay argues BIP-110 could cause greater harm than the inscriptions and Ordinals restrictions it is designed to impose across the network.
- He says Bitcoin cannot infer intent from data and warns consensus filtering could threaten privacy tools, custody systems, stablecoin settlement, and future applications.
- Saylor also opposes the 55% activation threshold as signaling stays below 1%, with mandatory signaling beginning in August before a September 1 target.
Michael Saylor has moved a long-running Bitcoin dispute into sharper focus, publishing a 110-point essay against BIP-110. The proposed soft fork would temporarily restrict methods used to embed non-financial data, including inscriptions and Ordinals, which supporters blame for crowded blocks and higher fees since 2023. Yet Saylor agrees with several underlying aims, such as inexpensive validation, affordable payments, and Bitcoin’s monetary focus. His bewildering conclusion is that the cure threatens more damage than the condition, turning a technical anti-spam measure into a much larger argument about consensus, neutrality, and permissionless innovation across the entire network.
— Michael Saylor (@saylor) July 18, 2026
Neutrality, Consensus and the Cost of Intervention
Saylor’s claim is that the network cannot infer intent from bytes: the same data might represent an image, proof, contract, or future application. If consensus rejects a format because users dislike one purpose, valid, fee-paying transactions become invalid. The central puzzle is whether Bitcoin can fight spam without judging purpose, because Saylor argues spam is not a consensus category. He warns that rules targeting one disputed use could later be repurposed against privacy tools, novel custody arrangements, stablecoin settlement, or token systems. The restriction may expire after a year, but its governance precedent could remain.
Saylor also attacks BIP-110’s activation mechanism. The proposal reduces the miner-signaling threshold to 55%, versus 95% used for earlier soft forks, and removes the customary chance for an unaccepted proposal to expire quietly. Signaling remains below 1%, far from the required level. A supposedly temporary safeguard could therefore create a lasting coordination hazard, in his view, if some participants enforce rules that others reject. The oddity is stark: a measure intended to protect Bitcoin’s operation might instead divide the network, especially when support is presently nowhere near the threshold needed for activation under current conditions.
Saylor frames the controversy as a test of Bitcoin’s identity rather than a narrow dispute over block space. He argues that the system’s strength comes from containing disagreement through neutral rules and hard consensus, not from appointing arbiters of acceptable use. The confrontation pits guardianship of neutrality against guardianship of purity, with Saylor aligned with Adam Back, Jameson Lopp, and Samson Mow, while Luke Dashjr and the Bitcoin Knots camp support BIP-110. The mandatory signaling window opens in August, and activation is targeted around September 1, ensuring this philosophical argument soon faces a concrete deadline.