Michael Saylor is sounding the alarm on what he sees as Bitcoin's most dangerous enemy: not hackers or governments, but factions inside the community trying to rewrite the network's rules for their own gain. In a broadside this week, the MicroStrategy chairman took aim at several proposals — including BIP-110, covenants, and larger blocks — arguing they amount to an attack on Bitcoin's core principles.
Saylor's constitutional argument
Saylor describes Bitcoin's consensus rules as its 'constitution' — a framework that defines property rights, scarcity, settlement, and the balance of power. Changing those rules for any group's benefit, he argues, would be an attack on every participant, both now and in future generations. He believes Bitcoin has the potential to grow 100-fold and become the foundation of global capital. But even a single 'corrupt' rule adopted today could limit future markets, technologies, and economic freedom.
Why BIP-110 is a target
One proposal in Saylor's crosshairs is BIP-110, which would limit data field sizes to reduce blockchain bloat. He calls it censorship of valid fee-paying transactions. The idea, he says, is a direct violation of the network's neutral settlement layer. It's not just a technical tweak — it's a value judgment about who gets to use the chain and how.
Covenants and larger blocks
Saylor also criticizes covenant-related proposals and larger-block pushes as a 'constitutional offense.' Larger blocks would reduce blockspace scarcity while increasing bandwidth and validation costs. Covenants would permanently add complexity to consensus and introduce new attack surfaces. Both, he argues, rewrite Bitcoin's rules and impose additional costs and risks on the wider network. Exchanges, custodians, developers, investors, and holders could all face risks if future rule changes put their businesses and capital in the hands of whichever group controls the consensus process.
The fee market and miner incentives
Miners' block subsidy declines through scheduled halvings. Saylor warns that crippling the fee market — by capping data fields or bloating blocks — would starve Bitcoin's defenders when the network needs them most. Without a healthy fee market, miners have less incentive to secure the chain. That's not a distant problem; it's baked into the economics.
What Saylor wants instead
Saylor supports keeping the base layer simple, neutral, scarce, and secure. Upgrades, he says, should be limited to cases of clear necessity. The message is blunt: don't fix what isn't broken, and don't let short-term interests rewrite the rules that make Bitcoin work. The debate over these proposals is far from settled, but Saylor's intervention adds a heavyweight voice to the side of caution.
