Key Highlights
- Michael Saylor has published 110 reasons why he believes Bitcoin should reject BIP-110.
- He argues that the proposal could restrict valid transactions, limit future Bitcoin development, and create new consensus risks.
- Saylor believes Bitcoin should use fees, relay policies, and mining policies to manage unwanted activity instead of changing its core rules..
Michael Saylor, founder of Strategy, the world’s largest corporate Bitcoin holder, has outlined his opposition to Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110), arguing that it raises broader questions about Bitcoin’s future consensus rules.
In a detailed article on X, Saylor published 110 reasons why he believes Bitcoin should reject the proposal, which is designed to temporarily restrict several types of transactions that are currently valid on the network. He argued that the proposal goes beyond dealing with data storage and could change how Bitcoin decides what activity is allowed on its blockchain.
BIP-110 wants to limit several Bitcoin transactions
The debate centers on growing disagreement over non-monetary data on Bitcoin. Supporters of BIP-110 want to reduce what they see as unnecessary data use, protect node operators from rising costs, and keep Bitcoin focused mainly on payments and money.
Saylor said he shares some of those concerns, but believes the proposed solution creates a bigger problem. He does not believe Bitcoin should change its core consensus rules just because some users dislike a certain type of valid transaction.
“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,” Salyor said.
Saylor says the proposal goes too far
Meanwhile, BIP 110 version 1.0.0 reached the “Complete” stage on June 25, 2026. However, that status does not mean Bitcoin has adopted the proposal or that the wider community has agreed to it.
If activated, BIP 110 would introduce seven temporary consensus restrictions for roughly one year. These would limit certain script sizes and data payloads, restrict some currently unused witness and Tapleaf versions, disable the Taproot annex, limit the size of Taproot control blocks, and restrict the use of certain Tapscript features.
Saylor said that the proposal is too broad because it places seven different restrictions into one package. This means users cannot support one part while rejecting another.
In his view, if one specific technical feature creates a measurable problem, that issue should be addressed separately instead of being combined with several other restrictions.
“There are 110 things more dangerous to Bitcoin than spam,” Saylor previously wrote. “BIP 110 turns a spam dispute into a consensus change that would invalidate some currently valid, fee-paying transactions.”
Bitcoin cannot know what data is useful
A major part of Saylor’s argument is that Bitcoin cannot understand what data is being used for. He said the network sees technical information, not human intentions. The same type of data structure could be used for something considered useless today or for a financial application that becomes important in the future.
That is why Saylor believes restricting technical features, because they may be used for data storage, could also affect future Bitcoin development.
He also raised concerns about the proposal’s effect on features that were deliberately left open for future upgrades. Saylor points to the Taproot annex, future witness versions, future Tapleaf versions, and OP_SUCCESSx as examples of areas that were kept available for later development.
Temporary rules could still create new risks
In addition, the fact that BIP 110 is temporary does not remove his concerns. Saylor argues that temporary consensus rules still have to be written, tested, reviewed, activated, monitored, and eventually removed. The proposal also creates different stages for signaling, activation, and expiration, which he says could increase the chances of confusion or disagreement.
Saylor further questioned whether the proposal has shown exactly how much it would improve Bitcoin. He said BIP 110 does not clearly measure how much it would reduce node costs, lower transaction fees, improve decentralization, or affect Bitcoin’s long-term security.
Saylor questions the proposal’s activation process
He believes Bitcoin already has other ways to deal with unwanted activity. Fees can make users compete for limited block space. Node operators can choose which transactions to relay, while miners can decide which transactions to include in their blocks. Saylor argues that these tools allow the market and individual participants to make their own choices without changing the definition of a valid Bitcoin transaction.
The proposed activation process is another major issue for him. BIP 110 uses a 55% miner-signaling threshold, compared with the 95% threshold associated with BIP 9. Saylor argued that a controversial change to Bitcoin’s consensus rules should require stronger agreement, not a lower level of support.
The bigger fight is over Bitcoin’s future rules
Beyond the technical details, Saylor said the biggest danger could be the precedent BIP 110 creates. If Bitcoin uses consensus rules to block one category of valid activity because it is considered unwanted, future groups could make similar arguments against other uses.
For Saylor, the debate is therefore about more than inscriptions or data storage. It is about whether Bitcoin should remain open to activity that follows its rules, even when some users dislike that activity.
He concludes that “the proposed cure is more dangerous than the condition,” making BIP 110, in his view, a proposal that could narrow Bitcoin’s valid activity and reduce its future options.
Also Read: Bitcoin Japan Corp. Aims to Solidify its BTC Treasury with Fresh ¥1.5B in Capital Push
