Quick Summary
- Michael Saylor published "110 Reasons BIP-110 Is a Bad Idea" on July 19 — a ~3,700-word takedown that racked up 879K+ views in hours
- BIP-110 would cap OP_RETURN data at 83 bytes, restrict witness data, and limit outputs to 34 bytes — targeting Ordinals, BRC-20, and Runes
- 0% of miners are currently signaling support in the current difficulty period — only ~38 of 9,000+ blocks since May 1
- Adam Back called it "a quest to police other people" and told supporters "bitcoin won’t be joining it"
- The mandatory signaling window opens ~August 7, but with zero miner backing, this fork is dead on arrival — unless something changes
What Happened
Bitcoin’s ugly family fight is back. And this time, two of the most powerful men in the space are screaming "no" while the people who actually run the network aren’t even picking up the phone.
BIP-110 (originally BIP-444) is a temporary one-year soft fork that would restrict what data you can put on the Bitcoin network. Think smaller OP_RETURN outputs, tighter witness data limits, and new restrictions on Taproot transactions. The targets? Ordinals inscriptions, BRC-20 tokens, and Runes — the NFT-adjacent stuff that’s been clogging blocks and annoying node operators.
On the surface, it sounds reasonable. "Bitcoin is for money, not JPEGs," the argument goes. Clean up the blocks, keep validation accessible, protect node operators.
But Michael Saylor isn’t buying it. On July 19, the Strategy executive chairman dropped a 3,700-word nuclear bomb on X titled "110 Reasons BIP-110 Is a Bad Idea." The post got nearly 900,000 views in its first day.
His core argument? "The proposed cure is more dangerous than the condition."
Saylor warns that using consensus to filter content creates a precedent Bitcoin can never undo. "BIP-110 turns a spam dispute into a consensus change that would invalidate some currently valid, fee-paying transactions. That precedent is the danger."
He went further: "Bitcoin cannot read intent. The network cannot know whether bytes represent an image, a proof, a contract, metadata, an authentication record, or a future application."
Translation: You can’t build a censorship machine and call it Bitcoin improvement.
Adam Back, the Blockstream CEO and Hashcash inventor cited in Satoshi’s own whitepaper, piled on even harder. He told BIP-110 supporters that Bitcoin "respectfully says no to what you want" and that "bitcoin won’t be joining it." He called the whole thing "a quest to police other people" — incompatible with the cypherpunk ethos that makes Bitcoin worth anything in the first place.
He even dismissed claims that Satoshi would have backed BIP-110 with a blunt: "Satoshi was not retarded."
The BIP editor, Mark "Murch" Erhardt, called the proposal "misguided and unusually careless" — which is basically diplomatic code for "this is a dumpster fire."
And here’s the part that makes this whole thing feel like a farce: the miners. Zero. Percent. In the current difficulty period, effectively zero blocks are signaling support for BIP-110. Since May 1, only about 38 out of 9,000+ blocks (~0.42%) have signaled. F2Pool refused outright. No major mining pool has endorsed it.
The fork’s mandatory signaling window opens around August 7. But without miners, it’s not a fork — it’s a tantrum.
Read our guide on choosing a Bitcoin wallet that keeps you in control while others fight over who gets to decide what "valid" Bitcoin looks like.
Why This Matters for Bitcoin
This isn’t just a technical debate about block space. This is a battle over who controls Bitcoin’s future.
The pro-BIP-110 camp — led by Luke Dashjr and pseudonymous author Dathon Ohm — wants to "protect" Bitcoin from non-monetary data. They see Ordinals as spam that degrades the user experience and makes running a node more expensive.
The anti-BIP-110 camp — Saylor, Back, F2Pool, the institutions — sees something darker. They see a slippery slope where today it’s "no JPEGs" and tomorrow it’s "no transactions over X amount" or "no addresses from Y country."
Saylor said it best: "Bitcoin does not need guardians of purity. It needs guardians of neutrality."
And the irony? Ordinals activity has already fallen off a cliff. Daily inscriptions dropped from 400,000+ at their peak in August 2023 to under 10,000. The "problem" BIP-110 claims to fix is already solving itself. Spot Bitcoin ETFs and self-custody remain far bigger issues for most Bitcoiners than block space debates.
The Love Is Bitcoin Takeaway
The 2026 version of Bitcoin’s civil war isn’t about block size. It’s about block content.
And that’s a much more dangerous conversation.
Saylor is right about one thing above all else: a temporary fix with permanent consequences is not an improvement. When you give the network the power to decide what "valid" data looks like, you’ve created a governing body — something Bitcoin was explicitly designed to avoid.
The censorship-resistant, permissionless money that made you fall in love with Bitcoin didn’t come with a content moderation committee. You don’t get to pick which transactions are "good enough" to include.
The real question every Bitcoiner should ask: Who decides what’s "spam"? And who decides next year?
Because if the answer is "the people with the most hashrate," then congratulations — you just reinvented the corporate banking system you were trying to escape.
Love is Bitcoin. Control is not.
FAQ
What is BIP-110?
BIP-110 is a proposed temporary soft fork that would limit the amount of data that can be included in Bitcoin transactions. It targets Ordinals inscriptions, BRC-20 tokens, and Runes by capping OP_RETURN at 83 bytes and restricting witness data to 256 bytes.
Does BIP-110 have miner support?
Effectively zero. In the current difficulty period, no major mining pool is signaling support. Only ~0.42% of blocks have signaled since May 1, and F2Pool has refused outright.
Why does Michael Saylor oppose BIP-110?
Saylor published "110 Reasons" arguing the proposal creates a dangerous precedent — using consensus to censor transaction content. He calls it "more dangerous than the condition it claims to fix."
What does Adam Back think?
Back has been a vocal critic, calling BIP-110 "a quest to police other people" and telling supporters that "bitcoin won’t be joining it." He dismissed claims of Satoshi’s support with blunt language.
When would BIP-110 activate?
The mandatory signaling window opens around August 7, 2026. Lock-in would require 2,016 contiguous signaling blocks. Activation would be around September 1. But with current miner support at zero, activation is extremely unlikely.
Is Ordinals spam really that bad?
Ordinals activity has dropped dramatically — from 400,000+ daily inscriptions in August 2023 to under 10,000. The "problem" BIP-110 claims to solve is already fading naturally.
Could BIP-110 split Bitcoin?
Without economic majority and exchange support, any BIP-110-aligned chain would be a minority fork with minimal value. It’s unlikely to cause a meaningful split.
Does this affect my Bitcoin?
No. Your coins remain yours regardless of the proposal’s outcome. But the governance question — who gets to decide what Bitcoin is — affects every holder long-term.
Final Thoughts
BIP-110 will probably die quietly in August. The miners won’t signal. The exchanges won’t support it. The deadline will pass, and nothing will happen.
But the question it raised won’t go away: Should Bitcoin’s rules be used to police content?
Saylor says no. Back says no. The miners say no. The market says no.
But the fact that this debate is happening at all should worry you. Because once the idea that Bitcoin needs "guardians of purity" enters the Overton window, it never really leaves.
Who will protect Bitcoin from its protectors?
Use code LOVEISBITCOIN at loveisbitcoin.com/bull to support independent Bitcoin journalism that asks the hard questions.
This article is for education only and is not financial advice.
Saylor Drops 110 Reasons Against BIP-110 — And 0% of Miners Are Backing It
