Strategy founder Michael Saylor has published a roughly 3,700-word post on X listing 110 reasons he opposes Bitcoin Improvement Proposal BIP-110, pushing a new round of debate over inscriptions, node costs, and what Bitcoin should be used for.
Saylor said he agrees with the goals cited by some backers of BIP-110, but not with the method.
“I share the goals, but I have a different view of the cure,” he wrote. He said many Bitcoin advocates he respects have endorsed BIP-110 because they want to keep validation accessible, protect node operators from unnecessary costs and content, preserve affordable payments, and keep Bitcoin focused on sound money rather than general-purpose data storage. He called those concerns legitimate, while rejecting the proposal itself.
BIP-110 targets Ordinals-style inscriptions
According to the source material, BIP-110 was proposed in December 2025 by anonymous Bitcoin developer Dathon Ohm. Its central aim is to limit Ordinals inscriptions and arbitrary data filling the Bitcoin network, while preserving Bitcoin’s primary role as a peer-to-peer cash system.
The mechanism described in the report would impose a temporary one-year restriction on the Bitcoin blockchain, allowing each bitcoin to carry only one inscription. In practice, that would mean new blocks would ignore later inscription transactions until they met the required conditions for validation.
Saylor framed his objection in broader terms, writing that “Bitcoin’s rules are neutral, consensus is firm, markets are open, and innovation does not require permission.”
Activation threshold stands at 55%, with 1% support in the last cycle
For now, BIP-110 does not appear close to activation. The report said the proposal needs support from 55% of Bitcoin validating nodes within the same block “cycle” to take effect.
In the previous cycle, identified as period 475 and spanning blocks 955,584 through 957,599, only 1% of blocks cast a vote in support.
That leaves the proposal well short of the threshold based on the latest cycle referenced in the source.
Adam Back joins criticism of the proposal
Supporters of BIP-110 include Ocean protocol founder Luke Dashjr. On the other side, Blockstream CEO Adam Back criticized the proposal on X, describing it as “telling other people what to do.”
Back argued that decentralization in Bitcoin means “you can’t impose your views on others,” and said that approach does not fit Bitcoin’s permissionless, censorship-resistant cypherpunk ethos.
The source said Saylor’s post had drawn 879,000 views, 692 replies, and 852 reposts by Sunday evening, underscoring how much attention the issue had attracted.
Ordinals activity has faded, but the dispute remains active
Data cited from Dune Analytics showed Bitcoin Ordinals inscriptions have dropped to fewer than 10,000 a day over the past month. At the August 2023 peak, the figure was more than 400,000 a day, a decline of more than fourfold based on the source’s wording.
The report described the “inscription war” as being driven by the Ordinals protocol, which sparked a wave of Bitcoin NFTs in 2023 and expanded Bitcoin’s use from simple value storage toward a more general data layer.
Even so, supporters of BIP-110 argue that the data bloat tied to inscriptions remains a potential threat to the network and should be addressed quickly.
A fresh protocol split inside the Bitcoin community
The source characterized BIP-110 as one of the most notable protocol-level disagreements in the Bitcoin development community since the 2015-2017 block size war. That earlier dispute centered on scalability, with participants willing to risk a chain split over raising the block size limit.
Saylor’s 110-point case spans node costs, historical data, economic design, and protocol evolution. He concluded that Bitcoin is at its most vibrant when people can argue fiercely without mistaking allies for enemies.
With BIP-110’s temporary fork proposal now tied to possible changes in Bitcoin’s validation logic, the fight over protocol boundaries is still moving ahead.