Key facts
- Michael Saylor opposes Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110).
- BIP-110 proposes a one-year soft fork to restrict non-financial data on the Bitcoin blockchain.
- Saylor argues BIP-110 threatens Bitcoin's neutrality and could lead to network splits.
- He believes the proposal sets a dangerous precedent by invalidating valid, fee-paying transactions.
- Saylor advocates for market-based fees and relay policies over code changes to manage network capacity.
Michael Saylor, executive chairman of Strategy, has published a detailed 110-point critique of Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110). The proposal aims to implement a temporary one-year soft fork to restrict the storage of arbitrary data, such as Ordinals and inscriptions, on the Bitcoin blockchain. Saylor argues that this measure is a 'bad idea' because it threatens Bitcoin's core principles of neutrality and permissionless innovation.
Saylor contends that BIP-110 sets a dangerous precedent by using consensus rules to invalidate currently valid, fee-paying transactions. He believes Bitcoin cannot discern the intent behind data stored on the network, and that restricting data forms also blocks legitimate uses. He warned that changing consensus to police one contested use creates a template that could be reused for other applications, posing a significant governance risk.
The proposal's activation design, which lowers the miner-signaling threshold to 55% from the typical 95%, is also a point of contention for Saylor, who believes mismatched enforcement could divide the network. He frames the dispute as a battle over Bitcoin's character, advocating for 'guardians of neutrality' over 'guardians of purity.' Saylor's stance aligns him with figures like Adam Back and Jameson Lopp, while opposing proponents such as developer Luke Dashjr.