Michael Saylor has publicly criticized Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110), calling it a “statist” approach to changing Bitcoin’s consensus rules. According to Saylor, the proposal attempts to restrict how Bitcoin can be used by limiting non-monetary data stored on the blockchain, such as inscriptions created by protocols like Ordinals.

He argues that Bitcoin’s open design should not favor one type of transaction over another and that property rights and free-market principles should determine how block space is used—not protocol-level restrictions.

BIP-110 is a proposed temporary soft fork that would impose stricter limits on arbitrary data included in newly created Bitcoin transactions.

The proposal would reduce the maximum size of OP_RETURN outputs, restrict witness data used for inscriptions, and cap certain transaction output characteristics for approximately one year.

Existing UTXOs and standard Bitcoin payments would remain unaffected, with the stated goal of reducing blockchain “spam” while preserving normal monetary transfers.

The debate centers on whether Bitcoin’s limited block space should primarily serve financial transactions or remain available for broader applications such as digital artifacts, metadata, and other forms of on-chain data. Supporters of BIP-110 argue that inscription-based transactions consume valuable block space, increase fees, and place unnecessary strain on the network.

Opponents counter that Bitcoin’s consensus rules should remain neutral, allowing users and miners—not protocol changes—to determine which transactions are economically valuable.

As of late July 2026, BIP-110 has received very little apparent miner support, with estimates placing signaling participation below one percent ahead of the proposal’s August activation window.

The lack of widespread support suggests the proposal faces significant challenges before any potential activation. Some critics, including Saylor, have also warned that implementing restrictions on certain transaction types could establish a precedent for future censorship or even increase the risk of community division if consensus cannot be reached.

The discussion surrounding BIP-110 highlights a broader philosophical debate within the Bitcoin ecosystem. While some developers and users believe reducing non-financial data would improve network efficiency and reinforce Bitcoin’s role as sound money, others argue that Bitcoin’s permissionless nature depends on remaining neutral toward how users choose to utilize available block space.

The outcome will likely depend on whether enough miners, developers, and node operators can reach broad consensus—a hallmark of Bitcoin’s decentralized governance.

^{BitcoinVersus.Tech Editor’s Note:}

^{We volunteer daily to ensure the credibility of the information on this platform is Verifiably True. If you would like to support to help further secure the integrity of our research initiatives, please donate here: 3C9o19EH5HSiwEPyCTmEKzxhNCbo2X6TTb}

BitcoinVersus.tech is not a financial advisor. This media platform reports on financial subjects purely for informational purposes.