Michael Saylor Urges Bitcoin Community to Reject BIP110 in 110-Point Thread

Michael Saylor, co-founder and executive chairman of Strategy, stepped into the Bitcoin governance debate on July 18 with a 110-point post on X calling on the network to vote down BIP110, an "anti-spam" soft-fork proposal. His essay, "110 Reasons BIP 110 Is a Bad Idea," had surpassed 840,000 views by Sunday afternoon. Saylor said he shares the goal of safeguarding Bitcoin, but argued the proposed fix is more dangerous than the problem it aims to address. His core objection: consensus rules cannot reliably judge the purpose of valid, fee-paying transactions, and should not attempt to. He wrote that participants who dislike certain data can refuse to use, relay, index, or mine it, and that any consensus change should target a proven denial-of-service or validation risk rather than perceived intent. The final entry branded BIP110 "a Bitcoin Iatrogenic Proposal"—recasting the BIP acronym using the medical term for harm caused by treatment—and concluded: "Bitcoin does not need guardians of purity. It needs guardians of neutrality." What BIP110 Proposes BIP110 is designed as a temporary, one-year soft fork that packages seven restrictions aimed at data-heavy transactions. The idea first appeared as BIP444 in October 2025, after Bitcoin Core's v30 release removed default limits on OP_RETURN data. A BIP110-capable client is built on Bitcoin Knots, node software maintained by Ocean CTO Luke Dashjr, one of the proposal's most visible supporters. Backers argue the question is about incentives, not neutrality: treating arbitrary data storage as a supported use, they say, warps fee dynamics, increases costs for node operators, and makes monetary transactions compete with non-financial traffic. They frame the one-year constraints as a temporary measure intended to push the network back toward bitcoin's role as money. An August Flashpoint With Limited Signaling Under BIP110's rollout plan, a mandatory signaling window begins near block 961,632, expected around Aug. 7. At that point, enforcing nodes start rejecting blocks that do not signal, with the rules activating for those nodes around Sept. 1. Public monitoring data shows signaling blocks currently represent 0.86% of the difficulty period—well below the 55% required for early lock-in—and have never risen much above 1%. If support remains at those levels, BIP110 nodes would reject most blocks from non-signaling miners during the mandatory window, raising the risk of a chain split onto a minority fork. Jason Hughes, Ocean's vice president of development and engineering, put node support at 7% to 15% in a guest post for Bitcoin Magazine and said the proposal appears headed for failure. Saylor first addressed the issue on July 11, responding to criticism from Blockstream CEO Adam Back by writing that there are "110 things more dangerous to Bitcoin than spam." Supporters of the soft fork replied in kind: investor Fred Krueger published a mirror-image rebuttal listing 110 reasons to back BIP110. The intervention is atypical for Saylor, whose company is the largest corporate holder of bitcoin ( BTC ) with 843,775 BTC at an average cost of $75,476, according to its most recent SEC filing.