USDSaylor Opposes BIP-110 as Bitcoin Nears August Signaling Test
Weak miner support raises the prospect of competing blockchain histories
TL;DR
- Michael Saylor published a 110-point argument urging Bitcoin participants to reject the temporary BIP-110 soft fork.
- Miner signaling remains below 1%, making activation through the current difficulty period mathematically impossible.
- Mandatory signaling could begin in early August and separate enforcing nodes from the chain followed by most miners.
Trade smarter on Jupiter, Solana’s leading DEX built for fast execution and deep liquidity.
Swap tokens at competitive rates, route across multiple liquidity sources automatically, and access perpetuals, DCA, and advanced trading tools — all in one place!
Michael Saylor has escalated opposition to BIP-110, arguing that the proposed temporary Bitcoin soft fork would threaten network neutrality as miners approach a decisive August signaling window. The proposal has attracted less than 1% visible miner support, leaving its current activation attempt mathematically unable to succeed and raising the possibility that enforcing nodes could follow a minority blockchain if broader coordination does not emerge.
Saylor, co-founder and executive chairman of Strategy, had published his most extensive public intervention in the dispute two days earlier through an essay on X titled “110 Reasons BIP 110 Is a Bad Idea.” The post had received more than 840,000 views by Sunday afternoon.
Saylor said he supports the proposal’s stated objective of protecting Bitcoin but considers its consensus restrictions a greater danger than the activity they seek to prevent. “The proposed cure is more dangerous than the condition,” he wrote.
His essay organized the case against BIP-110 around neutral base-layer rules, hard consensus, open markets and permissionless innovation. Saylor argued that Bitcoin’s consensus system cannot reliably determine why a valid transaction was created and should not distinguish between monetary transfers and arbitrary-data uses when both satisfy the network’s existing rules and pay the required fees.
Participants who object to particular transactions can refuse to create, use, relay, index or mine them, Saylor argued, without changing consensus rules for every Bitcoin user. He said new restrictions should be reserved for demonstrated denial-of-service, validation or network-security risks rather than judgments about a transaction’s intent, social value or acceptable purpose.
Saylor characterized BIP-110 in his final point as “a Bitcoin Iatrogenic Proposal,” using the medical term for harm caused by an attempted treatment. He ended the essay by writing: “Bitcoin does not need guardians of purity. It needs guardians of neutrality.”
The intervention followed Saylor’s first public entry into the dispute on July 11, when he responded to criticism from Blockstream CEO Adam Back. Saylor wrote that there are “110 things more dangerous to Bitcoin than spam.”
Saylor’s participation carries no formal authority over Bitcoin’s consensus rules, although his profile has brought additional attention to a protocol dispute he had previously avoided. Strategy was identified as the largest corporate holder of bitcoin, with 843,775 BTC acquired at an average cost of $75,476 per BTC as of July 12, according to its most recent SEC filing.
What BIP-110 would change
BIP-110 is an anti-spam proposal structured as a temporary soft fork that would restrict selected arbitrary-data and script uses currently permitted by Bitcoin’s consensus rules. The proposal was first published as BIP-444 in October 2025 after the release of Bitcoin Core v30, which removed or lifted the software’s default OP_RETURN data restrictions.
The proposal combines seven restrictions targeting data-heavy transactions. Its substantive rules would remain active for 52,416 blocks, representing approximately one year of Bitcoin block production, rather than establishing the restrictions permanently.
A client capable of enforcing the proposal is based on Bitcoin Knots, the node implementation maintained by Ocean CTO Luke Dashjr, one of BIP-110’s most prominent supporters. Inputs spending unspent transaction outputs created before activation would remain exempt, reducing the risk that coins created under the existing rules become unexpectedly unspendable.
BIP-110 supporters contend that unrestricted arbitrary-data storage consumes blockchain space, increases the burden placed on node operators and forces monetary transactions to compete with non-financial traffic. They present the proposal as a temporary measure intended to protect Bitcoin’s monetary uses and reorient block space toward bitcoin as money.
Opponents argue that invalidating transactions accepted under current consensus rules would establish a mechanism for policing transaction purpose. They also warn that mandatory signaling could divide the network if BIP-110 nodes reject blocks that remain valid to ordinary Bitcoin nodes.
Investor and vocal BIP-110 supporter Fred Krueger responded to Saylor’s essay by publishing a matching list of 110 arguments in favor of the proposal. The competing lists reflected a broader conflict over spam mitigation, blockchain usage, consensus neutrality and the conditions under which Bitcoin’s rules should be changed.
We’ve launched the all-new COIN360 Perp DEX, built for traders who move fast!
Trade 130+ assets with up to 100× leverage, enjoy instant order placement and low-slippage swaps, and earn USDC passive yield while climbing the leaderboard. Your trades deserve more than speed — they deserve mastery.
Miner signaling cannot succeed during the current period
Live monitoring at 6:07 UTC on July 20 recorded 11 signaling blocks among 1,236 tracked blocks, representing 0.89% support during the current difficulty period. A separate snapshot placed support at 0.86%, reflecting a slightly different observation time.
BIP-110 signaling has not exceeded roughly 1%. The current difficulty period had 780 blocks remaining at the monitoring point but required another 1,098 signaling blocks to reach the activation threshold.
The next complete difficulty period is therefore BIP-110’s final ordinary opportunity to secure early lock-in. Mining pools would need to move from minimal visible support to the required threshold during that window before the proposal enters its more contentious mandatory-signaling process.
Miner silence does not necessarily establish opposition. A non-signaling pool could reject BIP-110, remain undecided, avoid making a governance statement, operate software without the signaling option or wait for stronger economic coordination before changing its block version.
Mandatory signaling could separate Bitcoin nodes
Failure during the final ordinary period would cause BIP-110-enforcing nodes to demand that miners set version bit 4 between block heights 961,632 and 963,647. Nodes running the proposal would reject non-signaling blocks during that interval even when ordinary Bitcoin nodes continue treating those blocks as valid.
The mandatory phase is estimated to begin around August 7 or August 8, depending on block-production speed and the reference point used for the calculation. Using the July 20 blockchain tip and Bitcoin’s nominal block interval, another estimate placed the window from approximately August 8 through August 22.
The calendar dates are not fixed because Bitcoin’s block heights arrive according to actual mining activity. Faster or slower production would shift the estimated start, lock-in and activation dates.
The differing September estimates reflect assumptions about block-production timing and whether the date refers to the transition toward activation or the arrival of the final activation height.
Persistently weak signaling could leave BIP-110 nodes rejecting nearly all blocks produced by non-signaling miners during the mandatory phase. Enforcing nodes could then separate onto a minority blockchain with substantially less accumulated proof-of-work than the chain followed by non-enforcing nodes and most miners.
Jason Hughes, Ocean’s vice president of development and engineering, estimated BIP-110 node support at between 7% and 15% in a Friday guest post and argued that the proposal was on track to fail. The estimate exceeds visible miner signaling, but node participation does not determine which chain accumulates the most proof-of-work or receives the strongest economic backing.
A split could leave exchanges, custodians and businesses deciding which blockchain governs deposits, withdrawals, transaction confirmations and customer balances. Users could also encounter conflicting confirmation policies and uncertainty over which history economic participants recognize as Bitcoin.
A sustained split remains unresolved rather than inevitable. Miners could coordinate before or during the mandatory phase, enforcement could remain limited, or economic participants could converge rapidly around one blockchain.
Mining pools must decide whether to signal, continue producing non-signaling blocks or change their position during the final ordinary window. Node operators must choose whether to install BIP-110-compatible software, while exchanges and other economic actors may need contingency policies for incompatible histories.
Wallet developers are also advised to examine whether their software or users rely on transaction structures involving exposed Taproot or Miniscript paths that could be affected by the temporary restrictions. Relevant indicators include identifiable mining-pool support, node-enforcement decisions, exchange contingency planning and wallet-readiness disclosures.
Strategy post creates separate transaction speculation
Hours after publishing his BIP-110 essay, Saylor posted a StrategyTracker.com chart of Strategy’s bitcoin purchase history on Sunday morning with the caption “What’s next?”
The chart valued Strategy’s holdings at approximately $54.28 billion and showed them about $9.4 billion below the displayed acquisition cost basis. Saylor’s post had attracted roughly 965,000 views by late Sunday afternoon.
Saylor’s Sunday tracker posts have often preceded Monday disclosures of Strategy bitcoin transactions, although the pattern has become less consistent. A July 5 post preceded disclosure of the largest bitcoin sale in Strategy’s history.
The previous Sunday’s tracker post carried the caption “Orange dots tell only part of the story,” but the following regulatory filing showed no bitcoin transactions. Strategy had not confirmed a purchase, sale or other transaction for the week ending Sunday when the information was released.
The corporate treasury speculation remains separate from Saylor’s BIP-110 intervention. Strategy’s potential transaction activity concerns the company’s bitcoin holdings, while the soft-fork dispute concerns which consensus rules nodes and miners will enforce.
FAQ
What is BIP-110 intended to do?
It temporarily restricts selected arbitrary-data and script uses currently accepted by Bitcoin’s consensus rules.
Has BIP-110 secured enough miner support?
No. Visible signaling remains far below the threshold required for ordinary activation.
Could BIP-110 create two Bitcoin blockchains?
Yes. Enforcing nodes could reject blocks accepted by non-enforcing nodes and most miners.
Did Strategy confirm another bitcoin transaction?
No transaction had been confirmed for the week ending Sunday.
This article has been refined and enhanced by ChatGPT.
