TLDR
- Michael Saylor urged the Bitcoin community to reject BIP-110 before its expected August showdown.
- Saylor outlined his objections in a detailed essay titled “110 reasons BIP-110 is a bad idea.”
- BIP-110 proposes a one-year soft fork with seven restrictions on arbitrary data and selected script activity.
- The proposal would lower the miner activation threshold from 95% to 55%, raising concerns about a network split.
- Saylor argued that consensus rules cannot reliably determine whether transaction data represents spam or legitimate applications.
Michael Saylor has urged Bitcoin participants to reject BIP-110 as the proposal approaches an expected August decision period. In a 110-point essay, Strategy’s executive chairman argued that the temporary soft fork could reshape network rules. His intervention sharpens a dispute over data limits, miner approval thresholds, fees, and protocol neutrality.
Saylor Challenges the Proposal’s Core Restrictions
Saylor described BIP-110 as a greater risk than the activity its supporters seek to limit. “The proposed cure is more dangerous than the condition,” he wrote in his detailed statement. He said Bitcoin should not use consensus rules to narrow valid activity or restrict future technical options.
— Michael Saylor (@saylor) July 18, 2026
The proposal would impose seven temporary consensus restrictions for one year through a soft fork. These measures include limits on data payloads and rules rejecting selected script executions. Supporters say the changes would keep Bitcoin focused on monetary transfers rather than general data storage.
Saylor argued that the network cannot reliably identify the purpose behind data included within transactions. “Bitcoin cannot read intent,” he wrote while listing several possible uses for transaction bytes. He said protocol rules should not classify images, proofs, contracts, metadata, or authentication records through human judgment.
Saylor Warns Against Narrow Miner Approval
BIP-110 also proposes lowering the miner activation threshold from 95% to 55%. Saylor called the threshold too aggressive because a narrow majority could enforce major consensus changes. He argued that Bitcoin could face division if a large minority rejected the new restrictions.
A disputed activation could create incompatible network versions and uncertainty for exchanges, miners, developers, and treasury companies. Strategy currently holds 843,775 BTC, according to figures cited in the proposal debate. That position gives Saylor significant influence in public discussions about Bitcoin governance and institutional adoption.
Saylor also linked predictable rules with the network’s appeal to large financial institutions. He said restrictive consensus changes could discourage developers from building new custody, privacy, or corporate applications. The essay argues that Bitcoin neutrality requires broad permissionless access rather than approved categories of transaction use.
Bitcoin Fee Debate Intensifies Before August
Saylor said market fees already provide an economic method for managing demand for limited block space. Higher fees can price out low-value transactions when network activity increases. Individual node operators can also adjust relay policies without changing Bitcoin consensus rules for every participant.
He warned that restricting some transaction uses could reduce total fee demand across the network. Miner revenue increasingly depends on transaction fees as the block subsidy declines after each halving. Lower fee income could weaken incentives supporting Bitcoin hash power and long-term network security.
The Bitcoin proposal now approaches an August showdown as supporters and critics seek broader technical backing. Saylor urged participants to preserve neutral consensus rules while using fees and local policies to manage unwanted data.
He closed with a direct appeal: “It needs guardians of neutrality.”
