Michael Saylor, Executive Chairman of Strategy, has intensified his opposition to Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP 110), publishing a detailed critique titled “110 Reasons BIP 110 Is a Bad Idea.” Saylor argues that the proposal, which would introduce a temporary soft fork to restrict certain transaction types, fundamentally compromises Bitcoin’s neutrality.
BIP 110, formally known as the Reduced Data Temporary Softfork, aims to impose consensus-level limits on data-heavy transactions for approximately one year. It would cap OP_RETURN outputs at 83 bytes, restrict large data fields, and limit payloads to 256 bytes, while exempting outputs created before activation. Supporters, including developer Luke Dashjr, contend that such measures would reduce arbitrary data storage and ease the burden on node operators, particularly in light of the growing use of Ordinals, Runes, and other inscription-based assets.
However, Saylor asserts that the protocol cannot reliably determine the intent behind transaction data—whether it represents an image, proof, contract, or something else. He insists that Bitcoin should avoid consensus changes that decide which valid transactions deserve block space. In his article, Saylor concluded, “Bitcoin does not need guardians of purity. It needs guardians of neutrality.”
Joining Saylor in opposition is Blockstream co-founder Adam Back, who has warned that enforcing disputed rules without broad community support could create a dangerous fork risk. Both have described the precedent set by BIP 110 as “extremely dangerous.”
As of July 18, miner signaling for the proposal remained near zero—well below the required 55% (1,109 of 2,016 blocks) needed for activation during its modified lock-in window. This lack of support underscores the contentious nature of the debate, which pits those seeking to curb blockchain bloat against defenders of Bitcoin’s permissionless, neutral foundation.
The outcome of this governance dispute could influence Bitcoin’s long-term direction and market sentiment, especially as the network continues to test the $64,000–$65,000 resistance range.
