MicroStrategy’s Saylor Says BIP 110 is More Dangerous Than Bitcoin’s Data Problem 

Michael Saylor is urging Bitcoin developers to reject BIP 110, a plan he says treats a real problem with something more dangerous.

The MicroStrategy chairman posted his critique on X, arguing that Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP 110), nicknamed the “Reduced Data Temporary Softfork,” trades away protocol neutrality for a temporary, mostly symbolic win.

A BIP is simply a formal proposal to change Bitcoin’s core rules, and this one would briefly restrict how certain transactions are built to curb data storage on the blockchain.

Bitcoin’s Shared Goal, a Different Remedy

Saylor says he shares the authors’ goals. He wants to protect node operators from unnecessary costs, keep payments affordable, and push Bitcoin toward being a sound money rather than a general-purpose storage system.

Still, he insists the seven consensus restrictions punish valid, fee-paying transactions for one reason: unpopular content. The proposal would cap script sizes, restrict Taproot control blocks, and bar spending of undefined witness versions.

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

Saylor calls these changes a blunt proxy for a cost nobody has actually measured.

The plan reached “Complete” status under BIP 3 in June, a label that signals author readiness rather than community agreement. It grandfathers unspent outputs created before activation, a safeguard Saylor calls important but incomplete.

His stance echoes Adam Back’s blunt takedown of BIP 110, which predicts the push stalls within weeks of mandatory signaling.

Bitcoin’s Upgrade Paths at Risk

Saylor’s sharpest warning targets Bitcoin’s future optionality. Bitcoin’s code reserves certain unused technical options so future upgrades can expand without breaking anything already running. BIP 110 would close some of those reserved options, including ones tied to BitVM, an experimental method for building complex agreements on Bitcoin without a trusted middleman.

It would also tighten the depth of certain transaction structures, limiting how complex some setups can become.

Saylor’s core complaint is that these seven changes are presented as a single package. Supporters cannot back the narrower rule most agree on without also accepting six others that some may reject.

Saylor raised similar concerns about protocol drift before, framing ambitious rule changes as a greater threat than the problems they target.

Neutrality Over Social Pressure

Saylor wrote in closing:

“Bitcoin does not need guardians of purity. It needs guardians of neutrality,” Saylor wrote in closing.

The proposal’s 55% miner-signaling threshold sits well below BIP 9’s usual 95%. That lower bar concerns Saylor because it eases the path for a contentious change while dropping the standard failure state. The deployment window lasts roughly a year, after which a new EXPIRED state ends it if support never firms up.

He favors fees and a voluntary relay policy, tools that already ration block space without judging a transaction’s purpose. This view sits alongside his broader bull case for Bitcoin, built on fixed supply and the institutional appeal outlined in his corporate adoption thesis.

Whether BIP 110 gathers enough support to activate remains unsettled. Critics like Peter Schiff keep attacking Bitcoin’s fundamentals from an entirely different angle.

For now, the debate splits developers who back narrow technical guardrails from those who see BIP 110 as protocol overreach. Developers face a choice: pursue measurable fixes, or adopt a bundled restriction Saylor calls a dangerous precedent.