rewrite this title Saylor Rejects BIP 110, Warns Softfork Threatens Bitcoin’s Neutral Rules

Saylor’s essay lists 100 numbered arguments against the proposal, which he says amounts to using Bitcoin’s consensus rules to discourage a disputed but currently valid category of transactions. He frames the piece as a critique of the proposal, not the developers behind it, and says he shares their underlying goals of affordable node operation and cheap payments.

BIP 110, titled the “Reduced Data Temporary Softfork,” reached Complete status on June 25, 2026, according to its Github listing. That status means the authors have finished their planned work and recommend adoption. It does not mean Bitcoin developers or node operators have agreed to activate it, and the BIPs repository itself states that publication does not establish community consensus.

What BIP 110 Would Change

The proposal would run for roughly one year and add seven new consensus restrictions. These include an 83-byte limit on OP_RETURN outputs, a 256-byte cap on many pushed payloads and witness items, a ban on spending undefined witness and Tapleaf versions, a prohibition on the Taproot annex, a 257-byte cap on Taproot control blocks, and a rejection of certain Tapscript opcodes and branches.

Existing unspent transaction outputs created before activation would be grandfathered under the current rules. Saylor stressed that protection does not fully remove risk, since some pre-signed transaction workflows could still span the activation window and face new constraints, potentially forcing some users to migrate funds ahead of time.

Threshold and Activation Concerns

Saylor focused heavily on how BIP 110 would activate. The proposal uses a 55% miner-signaling threshold, well below the 95% threshold set in the standard BIP 9 process. It also removes the conventional timeout and FAILED state that lets a stalled proposal quietly expire, and adds a mandatory-signaling period ahead of guaranteed lock-in.

Saylor argued that a lower threshold for a contested rule change raises the odds of a chain split, since miners represent only one group among holders, exchanges, wallets and custodians who decide which rules a network ultimately follows. He said mandatory signaling changes what nonparticipation means for node operators during the deployment window.

Fee Market and Security Questions

Saylor’s essay also raises questions about Bitcoin’s fee market. Saylor noted that transaction fees make up a growing share of miner revenue as the block subsidy continues to halve every 210,000 blocks. He said BIP 110 does not model how suppressing one category of transactions could affect total fee demand, miner incentives, or long-term network security.

He pointed to Bitcoin Core’s existing relay and mining policy tools as less disruptive alternatives, arguing that node operators and miners can already limit unwanted transaction types through configurable policy without changing consensus rules for the entire network. Saylor also noted the proposal cannot fully stop data embedding, since users could split or disguise data within permitted structures.

A Warning on Precedent

Saylor closed his essay by describing BIP 110 as a governance risk rather than a technical fix. He wrote that once transaction validity depends on judgments about acceptable use, future disputes over privacy tools, stablecoin settlement, or other applications could face similar restrictions down the line.

Saylor said he disagrees with using a consensus softfork to police disputed use cases, calling the proposal a “ Bitcoin Iatrogenic Proposal” that creates more risk than the problem it targets. He closed by urging Bitcoin to stay conservative at the base layer, arguing that means resisting changes to consensus rather than rewriting them.

The debate over BIP 110 remains active among Bitcoin community members, developers, miners and node operators.

Community Reaction Splits

Replies to Saylor’s post on X show a divided response typical of Bitcoin protocol debates. Among roughly 50 to 60 sampled recent replies out of about 339 total as of 3 p.m. EDT on Jul. 18, an estimated 60 to 70% pushed back against Saylor or dismissed the essay outright, with several users questioning whether he runs a node and others calling the length of the argument excessive.

Supporters of BIP 110 argue that the proposal responds directly to rising node costs and data storage use cases that fall outside plain payments. A smaller share of replies, roughly 20 to 30%, backed Saylor’s position on preserving neutrality and technical optionality. Several of the commentators questioned whether or not Saylor leveraged artificial intelligence (AI) to write his long essay, with a few calling it “slop.”

The remaining replies were mixed or low engagement, with some users granting that separating monetary from nonmonetary transactions is difficult, while others treated the exchange as a broader clash between corporate Bitcoin holders and node operators focused on decentralization. Saylor’s original post had drawn more than 1,500 likes and over 320 reposts as of Saturday, engagement that outpaced the more critical tone found in direct replies.