Key facts
- Michael Saylor, executive chairman of Strategy, opposes Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110).
- BIP-110 aims to temporarily restrict arbitrary data storage on the Bitcoin blockchain via a one-year soft fork.
- The proposal includes consensus restrictions on data payload sizes and a reduced miner-signaling threshold of 55%.
- Saylor argues that the proposal risks network splits, market uncertainty, and stifles innovation.
- He advocates for market-based fees and relay policies to manage network capacity instead of code changes.
Michael Saylor, executive chairman and co-founder of Strategy, has voiced strong opposition to Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110), a measure designed to curb the storage of arbitrary data on the Bitcoin blockchain. Saylor argues that the proposal, which seeks to implement a one-year temporary soft fork with new consensus limits and a lowered 55% miner-signaling threshold, fundamentally threatens Bitcoin's core principles of neutrality and could lead to network instability.
In a detailed critique, Saylor stated that BIP-110's approach of using consensus to restrict valid activity is more dangerous than the perceived problem of 'spam.' He emphasized that Bitcoin cannot discern the intent behind data stored on the blockchain, and that elevating human judgment into protocol law would invert Bitcoin's inherent conservatism. Saylor expressed concern that such a change could chill innovation, weaken miner incentives by reducing aggregate fee demand, and ultimately compromise the network's security, especially as block subsidies continue to decrease.
Supporters of BIP-110 view it as an effort to restore Bitcoin's original purpose as peer-to-peer digital cash, focusing on its monetary functions rather than general-purpose data storage. However, critics, including Saylor, see it as an attempt to censor certain uses of the blockchain. Saylor suggested that market-based fees and individual relay policies are more appropriate mechanisms for managing network capacity and addressing 'spam' without altering fundamental consensus rules. He urged the community to remain focused on maintaining Bitcoin as an open, permissionless financial system, advocating for 'guardians of neutrality' rather than 'guardians of purity.'