Michael Saylor has voiced strong opposition to Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP 110), arguing that the proposed changes could introduce greater long-term risks than the blockchain data concerns they aim to address.
The executive chairman of Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) shared his views on X, stating that while BIP 110 attempts to address growing concerns about non-financial data stored on Bitcoin, it does so by compromising the network’s long-standing principle of neutrality.
Saylor Supports the Goal, Not the Approach
According to Saylor, reducing unnecessary blockchain bloat and keeping transaction costs affordable are worthwhile objectives. He also believes Bitcoin should remain focused on its primary role as a decentralized monetary network rather than evolving into a platform for permanent data storage.
However, he argues that BIP 110 introduces several consensus-level restrictions that would limit otherwise valid, fee-paying transactions based on the type of content they contain. In his view, these restrictions rely on assumptions about network costs without sufficient evidence to justify altering Bitcoin’s consensus rules.
The proposal includes measures such as limiting certain script sizes, placing new constraints on Taproot-related transaction components, and restricting the use of undefined witness versions. Although BIP 110 recently reached a “Complete” status under the BIP 3 process—indicating the proposal is ready for wider discussion—it has not yet achieved community consensus.
Saylor also acknowledged the proposal’s protection for existing unspent transaction outputs created before activation but suggested that safeguard alone does not resolve his broader concerns.
Concerns Over Future Bitcoin Development
One of Saylor’s biggest objections centers on Bitcoin’s future upgrade flexibility. He argues that some of the proposal’s restrictions could eliminate technical pathways that developers may rely on for future innovations.
Among the areas potentially affected are reserved protocol features associated with experimental technologies such as BitVM, which aims to enable more advanced computation and smart contract-like functionality on Bitcoin without requiring trusted intermediaries.
He also warned that tighter limits on transaction structures could reduce the complexity of applications developers may eventually build on the network.
Another concern is that BIP 110 combines multiple consensus changes into a single package. Saylor believes this forces developers and miners to either accept all of the proposed restrictions or reject them entirely, rather than evaluating each change on its own merits.
Neutrality Should Remain Bitcoin’s Guiding Principle
Summarizing his position, Saylor emphasized that Bitcoin should prioritize neutrality over attempts to regulate specific uses of the network.
“Bitcoin does not need guardians of purity. It needs guardians of neutrality.”
He also questioned the proposal’s activation mechanism, noting that its suggested 55% miner-signaling threshold is significantly lower than the 95% threshold commonly associated with previous Bitcoin soft forks under BIP 9. In his opinion, lowering the activation bar could make contentious protocol changes easier to introduce.
Many Bitcoiners I respect support BIP 110. I understand and share their desire to protect Bitcoin, but believe the proposed cure is more dangerous than the condition. Here are 110 reasons why Bitcoin needs guardians of neutrality. https://t.co/hOAqfAgC58
— Michael Saylor (@saylor) July 19, 2026
Instead of additional consensus restrictions, Saylor argued that existing market-based mechanisms such as transaction fees and voluntary relay policies already provide an effective way to manage limited block space without discriminating between transaction types.
Debate Around BIP 110 Continues
The future of BIP 110 remains uncertain as discussions continue within the Bitcoin development community. Supporters argue the proposal offers practical safeguards against blockchain abuse, while critics believe it risks expanding protocol rules beyond what is necessary.
As debate continues, the central question remains whether Bitcoin should adopt broader consensus restrictions to address current issues or preserve maximum protocol neutrality for future innovation.
