Michael Saylor, co-founder of Strategy and the largest publicly listed corporate holder of Bitcoin, has come out against BIP-110, a proposed soft fork that would restrict non-financial data storage on the Bitcoin blockchain. Saylor argues the change would invalidate some currently valid, fee-paying transactions and set a dangerous precedent for filtering transactions by perceived intent rather than by fee payment and cryptographic validity. The proposal has also drawn opposition from other long-standing Bitcoin contributors, exposing a widening rift in Bitcoin governance over who holds effective veto power.
What BIP-110 would change
BIP-110 would restore a tighter limit on OP_RETURN outputs, restrict larger data uploads, and reject blocks containing transactions that are valid under current Bitcoin rules. Its activation threshold is 55% of miners in a 2,016-block period — significantly lower than the historical 95% threshold used for permanent consensus changes. As of July 13, miner support for BIP-110 stood at roughly 1.3%, according to the public monitor at bip110.org.
Saylor's case against the fork
In a statement this week, Saylor said Bitcoin neutrality is a structural property, not a policy choice. He warned that modifying consensus rules to exclude use cases labeled as spam could set a precedent for excluding other categories down the line. Suppressing on-chain use cases, he argued, could reduce demand for transaction fees. Market-based fees and individual relay policies are preferable to consensus changes, he said.
Saylor also flagged the lower activation threshold as a risk. He warned it could produce a network split and sustained market uncertainty — a scenario that would hit the largest corporate holder particularly hard.
Governance tension on display
The opposition from Saylor and other veteran contributors highlights a deeper debate: whether a simple majority of miners should be able to impose a rule change that would reject blocks currently considered valid. Historically, Bitcoin soft forks with such effects have required near-unanimity. BIP-110's 55% threshold breaks with that tradition, and critics say it could erode the norm that consensus changes need broad buy-in.
For now, the proposal remains far from activation. With miner support barely above zero, the immediate threat of a split is low. But the debate over who gets to decide what counts as spam — and at what threshold — is far from settled.
