Saylor Blasts BIP-110 With 110 Reasons, Defends Bitcoin Neutrality
Michael Saylor posted a 3,700-word critique of BIP-110, rejecting the proposed fork to limit Ordinals. He argued for neutral rules and permissionless innovation while acknowledging concerns about network spam. The post gained massive attention amid low node support, making activation unlikely.
Quick Take
Saylor's 3,700-word post on X listed 110 reasons against BIP-110's Ordinals restrictions.
He advocates neutral, permissionless innovation while sharing concerns about network spam.
BIP-110 needs 55% node support, but the last voting period saw only 1% backing.
Ordinals activity is at near all-time lows, reducing urgency for such a fork.
Market Impact Analysis
NeutralThe debate is largely philosophical with minimal chance of immediate on-chain activation, so direct price impact from this article is negligible.
Speculation Analysis
Key Takeaways
- Michael Saylor published a 3,700-word post listing 110 reasons against BIP-110's proposal to restrict Ordinals on Bitcoin.
- He defends neutral, permissionless innovation while sharing concerns about network spam, dividing the bitcoin community further.
- BIP-110 needs 55% node support, but only 1% of blocks backed it in the last voting period, making activation highly improbable.
- Daily Ordinals inscriptions have plummeted from over 400,000 at peak to fewer than 10,000, reducing the urgency for a restrictive fork.
What Happened
Strategy executive chairman Michael Saylor dropped a 3,700-word bombshell on X, listing 110 reasons why Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 should be rejected. The proposed temporary fork aimed to block Ordinals inscriptions and other non-monetary transactions from the network. Saylor argued for "neutral rules, hard consensus, open markets, and permissionless innovation," acknowledging the spam problem but rejecting BIP-110 as the fix. The post ignited fierce debate among bitcoin maximalists and developers, drawing hundreds of replies and retweets, though on-chain signaling suggests the proposal is already dead in the water.
The Numbers
Saylor's thread dominated crypto social media, racking up 879,000 views, 692 replies, and 852 retweets within hours. Yet on-chain support for BIP-110 remains negligible—only 1% of blocks signaled approval during the last voting period, far short of the 55% threshold required for activation. Meanwhile, Ordinals activity has collapsed. Daily inscriptions sank from a peak above 400,000 in August 2023 to under 10,000 in recent months, sapping momentum from the anti-spam movement.
Why It Happened
BIP-110 emerged in late 2025 as a countermeasure to the Ordinals-driven spam that congested Bitcoin and spiked fees. Supporters like Luke Dashjr wanted to preserve Bitcoin as peer-to-peer cash by clamping down on arbitrary data. But figures like Adam Back and now Saylor oppose any protocol-level policing, arguing it violates Bitcoin's censorship-resistant ethos. Saylor's intervention crystallizes a growing philosophical rift: should Bitcoin be a pristine monetary ledger, or a neutral settlement layer for permissionless innovation—even if that includes NFTs? This debate echoes the Blocksize Wars but with higher stakes for Bitcoin's identity.
Broader Impact
Though BIP-110 is almost certain to fail, the discourse sets a precedent. It forces the community to confront whether Bitcoin can remain agnostic to use cases or must enforce a narrow monetary mandate. If network congestion resurges, similar proposals could gain traction, potentially splintering development focus. The outcome also influences how future upgrades balance censorship resistance with pragmatic concerns like node costs and block space efficiency.
What to Watch Next
- Node signaling: Keep an eye on any shifts from major mining pools or influential node operators, though a drastic change is improbable without a triggering event.
- Ordinals revival: A new wave of inscription activity could reignite calls for restrictive measures or spur alternative fee market designs.
- Alternative proposals: Developers may draft new BIPs targeting spam through economic disincentives or soft forks rather than hard protocol restrictions.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.
Always late to trends?
Join for the latest news, insights & more.
Disclaimer: Bytewit is an independent media outlet that delivers news, research, and data.
© 2026 Bytewit. All Rights Reserved. This article is for informational purposes only.
