Saylor rejects Bitcoin’s BIP-110 over censorship risk

Michael Saylor opposed BIP-110. He warned the soft fork could enable censorship on Bitcoin.

The proposal limits non-monetary data on-chain, targeting Ordinals-like activity. Backers want block space for payments. Critics say protocol filtering sets precedent and weakens neutrality. Saylor’s post drew wider attention beyond devs.

• Saylor’s statement on X opposes BIP-110 Saylor on X
• BIP-110 aims to curb arbitrary data via a soft fork with miner signaling BIPs on GitHub
• Controversial 55% activation threshold vs historic ~95% norms BIPs on GitHub

Ordinals reignited the dispute. Inscriptions raised fees and congestion, but also boosted demand for block space. BIP-110 is one response.

The 55% threshold is key. Opponents fear rules could shift under narrow miner majorities, inviting political or commercial pressure over time. Saylor frames it as a neutrality test: who decides what is “spam” at the protocol level?

For investors:
- Governance risk emerges for BTC fee dynamics. Fee volatility ties to whether non-monetary data persists.
- If limits pass, fee revenue from inscriptions could fall. Payment throughput may improve, but censorship concerns could raise social risk.
- Activation isn’t assured. Support is split, and signaling must meet threshold. Bitcoin’s change process is slow by design.

No timeline is set. Saylor’s stance strengthens opposition but doesn’t decide the outcome. Miners, devs, node operators, and businesses will weigh in next.

Sources:
- Michael Saylor’s statement Saylor on X
- BIP repository Bitcoin BIPs on GitHub