Michael Saylor is publicly urging Bitcoin developers to reject BIP 110, a proposal he says treats a real problem with something more dangerous. The proposal, nicknamed the 'Reduced Data Temporary Softfork', would restrict certain transaction structures to curb blockchain data storage. Saylor argues it trades away protocol neutrality for a temporary, mostly symbolic win.
What BIP 110 would do
BIP 110 reached 'Complete' status under BIP 3 in June 2026, a label that signals author readiness rather than community agreement. The proposal would cap script sizes, restrict Taproot control blocks, and bar spending of undefined witness versions. It also tightens the depth of certain transaction structures, limiting how complex some setups can become. Unspent outputs created before activation would be grandfathered — a safeguard Saylor calls important but incomplete.
Saylor's core complaint
Saylor's main gripe: the seven changes are presented as a single package. Supporters cannot back only the narrower rule most agree on without accepting the others. He warns BIP 110 would close some reserved options for future upgrades, including ones tied to BitVM, an experimental method for building complex agreements on Bitcoin. 'Bitcoin does not need guardians of purity. It needs guardians of neutrality,' Saylor wrote.
The threshold debate
BIP 110's 55% miner-signaling threshold sits well below BIP 9's usual 95%. That eases the path for a contentious change, Saylor argues. The deployment window lasts roughly a year, after which a new EXPIRED state ends it if support never firms up. Saylor's stance echoes Adam Back's blunt takedown of BIP 110, which predicts the push stalls within weeks of mandatory signaling.
What Saylor wants instead
Saylor favors fees and a voluntary relay policy as tools that already ration block space without judging a transaction's purpose. He shares the goal of protecting node operators from unnecessary costs and keeping Bitcoin as sound money rather than a general-purpose storage system. But he calls BIP 110's changes a blunt proxy for a cost nobody has actually measured.
The debate splits developers who back narrow technical guardrails from those who see BIP 110 as protocol overreach. With the deployment window open for roughly a year, the proposal's fate now rests on whether miner signaling firms up — or whether it expires, unresolved.
