Michael Saylor has publicly criticized Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110), arguing that the proposed changes pose a greater risk to the Bitcoin network than the problem they are intended to solve.
In a lengthy post published on X, the Strategy executive chairman outlined what he called “110 reasons BIP-110 is a bad idea,” asserting that while the proposal addresses legitimate concerns about Bitcoin network congestion, its proposed solution could weaken core principles such as neutrality, open participation, and permissionless innovation.
Saylor Says the Solution Creates Bigger Risks
BIP-110, introduced in December 2025, seeks to temporarily limit non-monetary transactions on Bitcoin by restricting arbitrary data stored on the blockchain. Supporters argue the proposal would reduce blockchain bloat caused by Ordinals inscriptions and similar data-heavy activity, helping preserve Bitcoin’s primary role as a peer-to-peer monetary network.
Saylor acknowledged that many respected members of the Bitcoin community support the proposal and said he shares their underlying concerns.
“Many Bitcoiners I respect support BIP-110,” Saylor wrote. “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.”
He stressed that his criticism was directed at the proposal itself rather than its supporters.
“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,” he added.
In a separate statement included in his analysis, Saylor argued that “the proposed cure is more dangerous than the condition,” warning that BIP-110 would use network consensus to restrict valid activity, limit future innovation, complicate deployment, and establish a precedent that could not easily be reversed.
Instead, Saylor advocated for preserving what he described as Bitcoin’s foundational principles of “neutral rules, hard consensus, open markets, and permissionless innovation.”
His post, spanning approximately 3,700 words, attracted significant engagement shortly after publication. As of Sunday afternoon, it had recorded around 879,000 views, along with hundreds of replies and reposts.
BIP-110 Sparks One of Bitcoin’s Biggest Governance Debates in Years
The proposal has emerged as one of the most significant protocol-level debates within the Bitcoin development community since the Blocksize Wars between 2015 and 2017, when developers, miners, and businesses were divided over increasing Bitcoin’s block size to improve transaction throughput.
BIP-110 was proposed by pseudonymous Bitcoin developer “Dathon Ohm” and has received support from Ocean protocol founder Luke Dashjr. However, several prominent Bitcoin figures have voiced opposition, including Blockstream CEO Adam Back.
Back has previously argued that the proposal represents an attempt to dictate how others use the Bitcoin network.
According to him, Bitcoin’s decentralized design means no individual or group should be able to impose their preferred use of the blockchain on everyone else. He has also maintained that restricting specific types of transactions conflicts with Bitcoin’s long-standing cypherpunk principles of censorship resistance and permissionless access.
Supporters of BIP-110 disagree, arguing that the growing use of Bitcoin for storing non-financial data threatens the network’s efficiency. They contend that Ordinals-related activity increases blockchain bloat, raises operating costs for node operators, and distracts from Bitcoin’s primary monetary purpose.
Proponents have also emphasized that the proposal introduces only a temporary one-year restriction and would not permanently invalidate fee-paying transactions. They further argue that the change is not intended to trigger a chain split, addressing one of the primary concerns raised by critics.
Activation Remains Uncertain
Despite the growing discussion, BIP-110 remains far from activation.
Under the proposal’s requirements, at least 55% of Bitcoin nodes validating blocks must support the upgrade during a designated Bitcoin block period before it can take effect.
Current support remains well below that threshold.
During block period 475, spanning blocks 955,584 through 957,599, only about 1% of validating blocks indicated support for BIP-110, highlighting the significant gap between current adoption and the activation requirement.
Ordinals Activity Has Declined Sharply
The debate comes as activity related to Bitcoin Ordinals has cooled considerably from its previous highs.
According to Dune Analytics, fewer than 10,000 Ordinals inscriptions have been recorded daily over the past month. That represents a dramatic decline from the more than 400,000 daily inscriptions seen during the peak of the Ordinals boom in August 2023.
While reduced network activity may lessen the immediate pressure to implement changes, the broader discussion over Bitcoin’s intended purpose and acceptable uses continues to divide developers and industry leaders.
What the Debate Means for Bitcoin
The dispute surrounding BIP-110 extends beyond Ordinals or blockchain storage. At its core, it reflects a broader philosophical disagreement over how Bitcoin should evolve and whether protocol changes should be used to limit certain forms of network activity.
Supporters see BIP-110 as a practical measure to protect Bitcoin’s monetary function and reduce unnecessary network congestion. Critics, including Saylor, argue that introducing restrictions through consensus could undermine the network’s neutrality and establish precedents that may shape future governance decisions.
For now, with network support remaining minimal, BIP-110 faces a long road before any potential activation. Nevertheless, the proposal has reignited one of Bitcoin’s most consequential debates over decentralization, censorship resistance, and the balance between preserving functionality and maintaining openness.