Michael Saylor urged developers to reject BIP 110, warning that its proposed restrictions could create a greater threat to Bitcoin (BTC) than unwanted blockchain data.
Key Points:
- BIP 110 would impose seven temporary consensus restrictions intended to reduce arbitrary data stored through Bitcoin transactions.
- Saylor says the package threatens protocol neutrality and uses a 55% miner-signaling threshold that is too low for a disputed change.
- He supports market fees and voluntary relay policies instead of consensus rules that judge transactions by their perceived purpose.
Bitcoin BIP 110
Saylor, executive chairman of Strategy, formerly MicroStrategy, published his objections on X, arguing that the Reduced Data Temporary Softfork would trade neutral protocol rules for a limited and largely symbolic reduction in blockchain data.
The proposal would temporarily cap some script sizes, restrict Taproot control blocks and prevent spending through undefined witness versions. Its supporters say those measures could reduce node costs and keep block space focused on payments.
Saylor agrees with the broader goal of protecting node operators, preserving affordable transactions and discouraging Bitcoin’s use as a general storage network. However, he argues that BIP 110 uses seven consensus rules to reject valid, fee-paying activity without measuring the costs those transactions impose.
The proposal reached “Complete” status under BIP 3 on June 25, which indicates that its author considers the draft ready rather than showing broad community support. It also protects unspent outputs created before activation, but Saylor said that safeguard does not resolve the wider precedent.
Also Read: Qwen3.8 Max Debuts With 2.4 Trillion Parameters, Trailing Only Fable 5
Saylor Neutrality Warning
Saylor’s strongest concern involves future development, because the proposal would close reserved technical options that later upgrades could use. Those options include paths associated with BitVM, an experimental design for complex Bitcoin agreements without a trusted intermediary.
He also objects to bundling all seven restrictions into one package and using a 55% miner-signaling threshold, below the 95% level associated with BIP 9 deployments.
“Bitcoin does not need guardians of purity. It needs guardians of neutrality,” Saylor wrote.
Instead, Saylor favors transaction fees and voluntary relay policies, which ration block space without making the protocol evaluate content. The dispute follows earlier Bitcoin fights over data storage, transaction standards and upgrade activation, debates that repeatedly test whether technical limits can be introduced without weakening the network’s neutral settlement rules.
Read Next: Cardano Activates Van Rossem Hard Fork — Now ADA Must Prove $0.20 Is Real