‘110 Reasons’ Wh...

‘110 Reasons’ Why BIP-110 Is a Bad Idea: Michael Saylor Rejects Bitcoin Soft Fork

By Rachel Lourdesamy July 20, 2026 In Cryptocurrency, Michael Saylor

Michael Saylor argues BIP-110 would undermine Bitcoin’s neutrality by allowing consensus rules to judge transaction purpose.
The proposed one-year soft fork remains well short of the activation threshold, making approval appear increasingly unlikely.
Critics warn the proposal’s activation mechanism could create network divisions and weaken long-term incentives for miners.

Strategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor has publicly opposed BIP-110, describing the proposed Bitcoin soft fork as a greater threat than the problem it aims to resolve and urging the community to reject it.

BIP-110 would impose seven temporary restrictions on data-heavy Bitcoin transactions for one year through a client based on Bitcoin Knots. Its supporters argue the measure would preserve Bitcoin’s role as money by reducing arbitrary data storage and limiting pressure on the network.

In a 110-point essay, Saylor argued Bitcoin’s consensus rules should remain neutral and avoid judging why users submit valid, fee-paying transactions. He maintained that nodes and miners already have the option to refuse relaying or mining unwanted data without altering the protocol’s consensus rules, which he believes should only address demonstrated technical threats.

https://twitter.com/saylor/status/2078754106030649740

Support Remains Well Below Target

Saylor also criticised the proposal’s activation approach, warning that a 55% approval threshold could increase disagreement across the network and potentially result in a chain split. He argued the proposal could create uncertainty for institutional investors, discourage future development and reduce fee income that helps incentivise miners as block subsidies continue to halve.

The proposal is expected to enter its mandatory signalling phase around 7 August before taking effect for participating nodes around 1 September.

Current signalling stands at approximately 0.86%, far below the level required for early lock-in, while supporters estimate node support at between 7% and 15%, suggesting the proposal is unlikely to succeed. Low participation could leave enforcing nodes operating on a temporary minority chain if they reject blocks from non-signalling miners.

Author

Rachel Lourdesamy

Rachel is a freelance writer based in Sydney with experience within financial services, marketing, and corporate communications in the APAC region. An avid reader and a graduate of the University of Sydney, she covers topics including business, finance and human interest.