Michael Saylor has urged Bitcoin developers to reject BIP 110, warning that the proposal endangers Bitcoin’s protocol neutrality and future upgrade options. He argues the plan sacrifices long-term flexibility for a short-term, largely symbolic solution aimed at limiting blockchain data storage.

BIP 110’s Restrictions and Controversy

BIP 110, known as the Reduced Data Temporary Softfork, proposes several consensus rule changes that would restrict transaction construction to reduce on-chain data. Key measures include capping script sizes, limiting Taproot control blocks, and blocking spending of undefined witness versions. Although intended to lower node operator costs and maintain affordable payments, Saylor contends these restrictions unfairly penalize valid transactions carrying unpopular content.

The proposal achieved Complete status under BIP 3 in June, indicating author readiness but not community consensus. It does grandfather unspent outputs created before activation, a protection Saylor acknowledges but deems insufficient to mitigate risks.

Implications for Bitcoin’s Future Development

Saylor’s primary concern is that BIP 110 closes several reserved technical options in Bitcoin’s codebase, including those related to BitVM, an emerging framework for building complex decentralized agreements without intermediaries. The plan also limits transaction complexity by tightening structural depth.

He criticizes packaging seven distinct rule changes as a single unit, forcing supporters to accept all or none. This approach could stifle debate and hinder adoption of narrower improvements broadly supported by the community.

Echoing Adam Back’s earlier critique, Saylor highlights risks to Bitcoin’s optionality and warns the lower 55% miner-signaling threshold for BIP 110 reduces barriers for contentious protocol changes compared to the usual 95% standard under BIP 9.

In his closing remarks, Saylor emphasized Bitcoin’s need for "guardians of neutrality" rather than "guardians of purity," underscoring the importance of preserving the protocol’s neutrality even amid pressure to address specific challenges.

This material is informational and not financial advice.