Strategy's Saylor rejects Bitcoin fork proposal BIP-110
The executive chairman of the largest corporate Bitcoin treasury has publicly opposed a proposed network fork aimed at curbing data spam, highlighting a rare ideological rift that currently lacks the consensus needed for implementation.
Strategy executive chairman Michael Saylor published a 3,700-word critique on Sunday outlining 110 reasons to reject BIP-110, a proposed temporary fork designed to restrict non-monetary data on the Bitcoin network. The proposal, introduced in December 2025, aims to curb Ordinals inscriptions and arbitrary data to preserve Bitcoin's utility as a peer-to-peer cash system.
While Saylor aligned with the proposal's underlying goals, he firmly argued against its mechanism. “Many Bitcoiners I respect support BIP 110. They want to keep validation accessible, protect node operators from unwanted costs and content, preserve affordable payments, and keep Bitcoin focused on sound money rather than general-purpose data storage. Those are serious concerns. I share the objectives. I disagree about the remedy,” Saylor said.
The dispute represents the most notable protocol-level debate since the Blocksize Wars of 2015 to 2017, a period when disagreements over network scalability risked permanently splitting the blockchain. For corporate treasuries and investors, such ideological fractures carry significant weight because chain splits can create competing assets and disrupt market confidence.
Despite the vocal disagreement, the immediate risk of a network split remains low. BIP-110 requires 55% of validating nodes to signal support, yet only 1% of blocks backed the proposal in the most recent evaluation period. Additionally, the practical urgency driving the initiative has faded. Daily Ordinals inscriptions have dropped below 10,000 over the last month, compared to a peak exceeding 400,000 in August 2023.
The proposal was introduced by pseudonymous developer "Dathon Ohm" and supported by Ocean protocol founder Luke Dashjr, who argues the temporary, one-year fix is necessary to combat a serious network threat. However, the measure faces entrenched opposition from Blockstream CEO Adam Back, who described it as a “quest to police other people” that violates Bitcoin's censorship-resistant ethos. Saylor concluded by emphasizing community unity: “This article critiques the proposal, not the people behind it. I assume good faith. Bitcoin is strongest when we can disagree vigorously without mistaking allies for enemies.”
