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 publicly opposes BIP110, arguing that consensus changes should not restrict Bitcoin transactions.
Michael Saylor, Executive Chairman of MicroStrategy, publicly opposes Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP110), arguing that consensus changes should not restrict valid Bitcoin transactions. In an article titled "110 Reasons BIP 110 Is a Bad Idea", Saylor said that Bitcoin should rely on neutrality rules, market forces and node policies rather than protocol restrictions. He pointed out that Bitcoin "does not need a pure guardian" but a "neutral guardian."
Saylor questions the BIP 110 proposal
According to Saylor, BIP 110 would impose temporary consensus limits on several Bitcoin transaction types. However, he stressed that the proposal has not yet been adopted and a broader community consensus is still needed. He believes that Bitcoin cannot determine why users create transactions, so controversial activities should be subject to market incentives, mining policies, and node configurations rather than consensus rules. Saylor also emphasized that his article criticized the proposal itself, not its supporters. He said many supporters do have legitimate concerns about node costs, payments and network efficiency.
Consensus change triggers Saylor's opposition
Saylor pointed out that BIP 110 targets a controversial use scenario rather than a critical consensus failure. He believes that consensus changes should be limited to inflation, double spending or other major agreement issues. He also opposes restrictions that affect script structure, Taproot features, and future upgrade paths. According to Saylor, these changes could reduce technical flexibility while limiting future innovation in Bitcoin.
In addition, Saylor questioned the proposal's deployment process. He pointed out the revised activation threshold in the proposal and warned that different rules enforcement methods could increase network coordination risks.
Neutrality is at the heart of its position
Saylor also believes that Bitcoin should retain innovation without licensing, rather than narrow effective trading activity. He said voluntary relay policies and market pricing already provided alternatives without changing consensus rules. In addition, he warned that adopting BIP 110 could set a precedent for future restrictions on other transaction types. According to Saylor, the agreement debate should focus on technical necessity rather than judgment of network usage preferences.
His article concluded that Bitcoin's power stems from neutral rules, hard consensus and open markets. Therefore, Saylor believes that BIP 110 is a wrong solution for the problem it is trying to solve.
