Michael Saylor and Adam Back have publicly rejected Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110), warning that its temporary transaction restrictions could undermine Bitcoin's neutral settlement rules and consensus stability. The proposal, authored by pseudonymous developer Dathon Ohm and designed as a one-year soft fork, aimed to cap output scripts and data pushes to curb non-monetary data like Ordinals inscriptions.
Saylor argued that BIP-110 transforms a spam disagreement into a consensus-level protocol change that would invalidate currently valid, fee-paying transactions. He called the precedent "more dangerous than spam itself" and stressed that altering consensus rules over transaction filtering introduces unnecessary risk. Adam Back emphasized that Bitcoin's decentralized governance prevents any single party from imposing transaction policies, and that the proposal conflicts with Bitcoin's censorship-resistant, permissionless design. Both executives framed the issue as a matter of protecting predictable transaction validity rather than endorsing Ordinals.
Despite some support—including from developer Luke Dashjr—miner signaling remained extremely weak. Data from BGeometrics showed only about 1% support during period 475, far below the early lock-in threshold of 55%. With daily Ordinals inscriptions falling below 10,000 (down from peaks of over 422,000 in mid-2023), the urgency for restrictive measures diminished. Back noted that anyone unhappy with the consensus remains free to fork, but Bitcoin itself would not adopt BIP-110 under current circumstances.
