Exchange Ranking
Top Exchanges
24h Volume Ranking
Popularity Ranking
Exchange BTC Balance
Proof of Reserves
Decentralized Exchanges
Funding Rate
Funding Heatmap
Liquidation Data
Max Pain
Long/Short Ratio
Whale L/S Ratio
Binance/Okex/Huobi L/S
Bitfinex Margin L/S
ETF Tracker
Solana ETF
XRP ETF
Hong Kong ETF
Bitcoin Treasuries
Crypto Reversal
Ethereum Reserves
HyperLiquid Wallet Analysis
Hyperliquid Whale Watch
Large Transactions
On-chain Movement
Bitcoin ROI
Stablecoin Market Cap
Options Analysis
News
Articles
Economic Calendar
Features
Wallet
Contract Calculator
Security
Collections
Watchlist
Following
BTC Michael Saylor detonates Bitcoin community: Is BIP-110 an "iatrogenic" proposal?
On Wednesday, Michael Saylor posted a short tweet on Platform X, which instantly ignited the Bitcoin community. He wrote: "BIP 110: Bitcoin iatrogenic Proposal." There was no explanation or discussion in this sentence.
The tweet received 342,000 views in a few hours, which is enough to illustrate the sensitivity of current market sentiment. "Iatrogenic" is a medical term that refers to the harm caused by the treatment itself. Saylor's intentions are not obscure.
What is BIP-110?
Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110), proposed by a developer who goes by the pseudonym Dathon Ohm, proposes a one-year temporary soft fork designed to limit the embedding of non-financial data on the Bitcoin blockchain.
Specific technical details include: setting the new output limit to 34 bytes, limiting data push and witness elements to 256 bytes, and temporarily restricting certain Taproot functions.
The proposal mainly targets protocols such as Ordinals, BRC-20 tokens and Runes, which allow images, text and NFT-like assets to be written directly to the blockchain.
Proponents believe that these use cases cause blockchain to expand, increase node operating costs, and drive up transaction costs. The one-year "sunset clause" is designed to make the measure appear like a corrective intervention rather than a permanent restriction.
Currently, miners 'signal support rate for BIP-110 remains at around 1% or lower. An important activation window will arrive in early August.
Why did Saylor object?
This is not the first time Saylor has fired on a BIP-110. Earlier this month, he posted that "there are 110 things more dangerous than 'spam' for Bitcoin," and pointed out that turning content disputes into consensus-level agreement changes has potential harm far beyond the Ordinals themselves.
His core concern is that the proposal would invalidate transactions that are currently in effect and for which fees have been paid. He believes that this is the real threat.
Bitcoin's neutrality-that is, handling any valid transaction without judgment-is the cornerstone of its credibility. Once subjective policy preferences begin to be encoded into consensus rules, where should the boundaries be drawn?
There is no room for compromise
BIP-110 supporters hold the opposite view: they believe that unlimited data storage will drive up the cost of running all nodes, thereby undermining decentralization, and that protecting Bitcoin's core monetary value deserves a temporary and targeted intervention.
Neither party gave in. A signal vote among miners in the coming weeks will determine whether this is just a debate or whether it turns into a crisis.
