Saylor Rejects BIP-110 as Bitcoin Temporary Fork Gets Low Node Support
Michael Saylor (Strategy) used social media to argue that Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110) is a bad idea, even though he supports the goal of reducing Ordinals-style on-chain “spam.” He says BIP-110 would alter validation norms and “neutral rules,” weakening Bitcoin’s permissionless ethos and permissionless innovation.
BIP-110, proposed in December 2025, would be a temporary soft fork (about one year) aimed at limiting non-monetary data in transactions, including Ordinals inscriptions and other arbitrary data. For traders, the immediate issue is governance/protocol headline risk—BTC network policy could become contentious.
Activation is uncertain. BIP-110 requires roughly 55% miner/validator signaling in a Bitcoin block “period.” In the last measured period (475), only about 1% of blocks signaled support, suggesting the change is unlikely to pass soon.
The latest reporting adds context: Ordinals activity is reportedly near multi-month lows, with fewer than 10,000 inscriptions per day versus more than 400,000 at the August 2023 peak. Opponents such as Blockstream CEO Adam Back criticized the plan as “policing other people.” Supporters including Ocean Protocol founder Luke Dashjr and developer “Dathon Ohm” argue the threat of chain bloat is serious, and that a one-year limit avoids a lasting chain split.
Bottom line for crypto traders: BIP-110 is generating major narrative attention, but low current signaling makes activation and any direct execution risk for Bitcoin consensus look limited in the near term.
Neutral
Saylor’s public rejection of BIP-110 raises short-term headline and governance uncertainty around BTC network policy, which can increase attention and event-driven volatility. However, the latest data undermines near-term execution: BIP-110 needs ~55% signaling, and the last measured period showed only ~1% block support. Combined with Ordinals activity being near multi-month lows, the probability of an imminent protocol change looks low.
So the net effect on BTC price is likely neutral: traders may see brief narrative-driven swings, but the lack of sufficient node signaling reduces the chance of a fast, concrete consensus outcome. Over the longer term, the debate could still influence market expectations around “permissionless innovation” and future changes to transaction data rules, but that path depends on whether support rises in subsequent periods.