Strategy's Michael Saylor Makes 110-Point Case Against Bitcoin's BIP-110
Michael Saylor sharply opposed BIP-110, a proposed Bitcoin soft fork aimed at limiting arbitrary data on-chain and reducing inscriptions/Ordinals. In a 110-point essay, he argued the change would do more harm than the spam it targets, because Bitcoin cannot distinguish “spam” from legitimate future uses like images, proofs, contracts, privacy tools, or token systems. He warned that changing consensus to police one use creates a dangerous precedent and a governance risk that could be reused against other applications. He also criticized the proposal’s activation design, saying lower signaling thresholds and non-standard enforcement could split the network if support remains weak. Saylor framed Bitcoin’s value as neutrality and hard consensus, not “guardians of purity.” His stance aligns him with other BIP-110 critics including Adam Back, Jameson Lopp, and Samson Mow, while supporters such as Luke Dashjr view it as anti-spam protection.
