Saylor rejects BIP 110 and defends Bitcoin neutrality

Michael Saylor rejects BIP 110, which he presents as a threat to the neutrality of bitcoin. The proposal wants to limit for one year several transactions containing data not linked to payment. For Saylor, the real danger is not spam. This is the idea that a disagreement in usage can modify the rules of consensus.

Bitcoin: Saylor refuses a consensus against certain uses

Bitcoin finds itself facing a sensitive governance debate. BIP 110 offers a temporary soft fork to reduce the data recorded in transactions. Michael Saylor believes that this technical response would set a precedent that is riskier than the problem at hand. His essay lines up 100 arguments against the proposal. He does not present his opposition as an attack on developers. It even claims to share certain objectives, such as cheaper nodes and more accessible payments.

The divergence concerns the method. Saylor refuses to allow consensus to be used to declare certain uses acceptable and others undesirable, while these transactions remain valid today. BIP 110 targets uses that exploit block space to write or transport data. Critics see it as a misuse of bitcoin, first designed as a censorship-resistant currency.

The proposal would add seven consensus rules. In particular, it would limit OP_RETURN to 83 bytes, cap several payloads at 256 bytes and restrict certain uses linked to Taproot and Tapscript. These rules would be temporary. They would last about a year. UTXOs created before activation would be protected, to prevent existing funds from becoming impossible to spend.

But Saylor considers this protection incomplete. Certain pre-signed flows or complex arrangements could be disrupted. According to him, a temporary rule can still produce lasting effects on user confidence.

The 55% threshold worries opponents

The most explosive point concerns activation. BIP 110 provides for a reporting threshold of 55% of miners, much lower than the 95% of the classic BIP 9. This difference fuels accusations of forceful passage. Saylor emphasizes a simple reality: miners are not all of Bitcoin. Holders, nodes, platforms, wallets and custodians also participate in defining the rules actually applied.

A threshold that is too low can therefore create two incompatible perceptions of the network. Some participants follow the new rule. Others continue with the old rules. This is classic terrain for a chain split. This risk is all the more sensitive as visible support remains weak. If an active minority tries to impose a contested rule, they may get not bitcoin reform, but a minority chain.

Saylor also links this debate to the economic security of the network. As halvings reduce the block subsidy, miners rely more on transaction fees. However, some disputed transactions pay fees. Removing them at the consensus level can reduce some of the block space demand. This is not neutral for the income of miners.

Supporters of BIP 110 respond that the cost of nodes and block pollution also threaten decentralization. Their argument is not absurd. A network that is too heavy can exclude small operators. But Saylor prefers configurable relay and mining policies. These tools already allow certain nodes or miners to filter transactions without imposing a universal rule on all Bitcoin.

Bitcoin neutrality becomes the real subject

The debate goes beyond registrations, OP_RETURN or Taproot. It touches on the neutrality of bitcoin. Who decides whether a transaction pays for legitimate use? Who decides between payment, storage, privacy, stablecoins or future applications?

Saylor fears a slippery slope. If the consensus begins to prohibit uses deemed non-monetary, other battles will follow. Privacy tools, settlement solutions or financial applications could become the next targets. The community remains divided. Some defend BIP 110 as a hygiene measure. Others see it as too aggressive a remedy, capable of injuring the patient it claims to treat.

This debate above all confirms one thing: Bitcoin changes with difficulty, and that is part of its strength. A modification of the consensus must obtain very broad support, not just a technical majority. Saylor therefore defends a conservative line: preserve the base layer, let the fee market play its role and prevent a fork project from transforming a usage disagreement into a governance crisis.