Michael Saylor, the loudest bull on Wall Street for Bitcoin, just picked a new fight. This time, his target is not a regulator or a short seller. It is a proposal to “clean up” the Bitcoin blockchain itself, and Saylor says it would do more damage than the mess it tries to fix.
By Keisha Williams | July 23, 2026
The Hook: A Plan to Declare What Counts as “Real” Bitcoin Data
Imagine you run a public highway. Anyone can drive on it, and anyone can carry whatever cargo they want, as long as they pay the toll. Now imagine someone proposes a rule: only “real” cargo counts. No weird shipments, no unusual packages. Who decides what is real? That is the fight happening right now inside the Bitcoin community.
A new proposal called BIP-110 (Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110) wants to temporarily restrict what kind of data people can store on the Bitcoin blockchain. The idea is to cut down on so-called “spam” to keep Bitcoin focused on being money. But Saylor, whose company Strategy holds over 843,000 BTC, published a detailed critique calling the plan “110 reasons BIP-110 is a bad idea.”
“The proposed cure is more dangerous than the condition,” Saylor warned.
On-Chain Evidence: What BIP-110 Actually Does
Here is what the proposal would do, in plain terms. BIP-110 introduces a one-year temporary “soft fork” (a backwards-compatible change to Bitcoin rules) with seven new restrictions on what data the blockchain accepts. It would cap the size of data payloads, reject certain types of script executions, and generally try to push out people using Bitcoin as a storage drive for random files.
The supporters of BIP-110 say Bitcoin was designed to be peer-to-peer digital cash, not a decentralized hard drive. In recent years, people have found ways to embed images, contracts, authentication records, and even video games into Bitcoin transactions. Fans of this stuff call it innovation. Critics call it bloat that slows down the network and drives up fees for everyone else.
But there is a controversial twist. Normally, Bitcoin upgrades need 95 percent of miners to agree before they take effect. BIP-110 lowers that bar to just 55 percent. Saylor calls this threshold “too aggressive” and warns it could split the network into competing versions, something that has happened before with messy results.
The Core Conflict: Can Bitcoin Judge Intent?
Saylor zeroed in on what may be the deepest philosophical problem with BIP-110: Bitcoin cannot read minds.
“Bitcoin cannot read intent,” Saylor wrote. “The network cannot know whether bytes represent an image, a proof, a contract, metadata, an authentication record, or a future application.”
Think of it like a post office. The mail system does not open every envelope to check if the contents are “important enough.” It just delivers the mail. If you start letting postal workers decide what counts as worthy mail, you have given a small group of people enormous power over what flows through the system.
That, Saylor argues, is exactly what BIP-110 would do. By trying to ban “spam,” the protocol would effectively insert human judgment into a system that was designed to be neutral and automatic. Today the target is data storage. Tomorrow the target could be privacy tools, corporate applications, or new financial products nobody has invented yet.
Market Implications: Why This Matters for Regular Investors
If you own Bitcoin, this fight affects you, even if you never use the blockchain to store data. Here is why.
Bitcoin’s security depends on miners. Miners are paid in two ways: the block reward (new coins created with each block) and transaction fees. The block reward gets cut in half roughly every four years. The most recent halving means miners increasingly rely on fees to stay profitable. If BIP-110 restricts certain types of transactions, fewer people use the network, fee revenue drops, and miners have less incentive to secure the chain. Weaker security means a less valuable Bitcoin.
At the same time, big institutional investors are drawn to Bitcoin precisely because it is open, neutral, and predictable. Saylor argues that BIP-110 could create a “chilling effect” on developers and innovation. If the rules can change based on what a majority of miners consider “appropriate,” then Bitcoin starts to look less like a public utility and more like a private club with a membership committee.
As of today, Bitcoin trades near 64,692 USD, according to market data. ETH sits at 1,873 USD, and SOL at 75.52 USD. The broader crypto market has been volatile, and a governance dispute inside Bitcoin could add another layer of uncertainty for investors trying to price long-term value.
The Verdict: Neutrality vs. Purity
Saylor is not arguing that spam is good. He is arguing that the solution is worse than the problem. Instead of changing the fundamental rules of Bitcoin, he points to tools that already exist. Miners and node operators can set their own “relay policies” to decide which transactions they will pass along. If enough people refuse to relay certain types of data, it becomes expensive and difficult to put on the chain. Meanwhile, market-based fees naturally price out low-value transactions during busy periods.
In other words, if spam is a nuisance, let the market handle it. Do not rewrite the constitution to settle a neighborhood dispute.
“Bitcoin does not need guardians of purity,” Saylor concluded. “It needs guardians of neutrality.”
That line captures the whole debate. Is Bitcoin a payments network that should be optimized for efficiency? Or is it a neutral, censorship-resistant foundation that anyone can build on, no questions asked? The answer to that question will shape what Bitcoin becomes over the next decade, and how much it is worth.
The BIP-110 proposal is still under discussion. No vote has been scheduled, and the Bitcoin community is known for moving slowly on purpose. But the lines are drawn. On one side: those who want a leaner, “pure” blockchain. On the other: those who believe neutrality is the whole point. For now, the highway stays open to all traffic. How long that lasts depends on whether Saylor’s argument wins over the miners who actually run the show.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Cryptocurrency investments carry risk, and readers should do their own research before making any investment decisions. The views expressed here are based on publicly available information as of July 23, 2026.
saylor defending arbitrary data on the bitcoin chain while his company holds 250k+ BTC. he has the most to lose if the chain gets spammed into unusability
funny how the same people who said ordinals were fine because market decides are now upset about BIP-110. can only have it one way
BIP-110 is a temporary measure. Nobody is permanent banning data storage, just throttling spam during high fee periods. The opposition feels overblown.
Saylor fighting BIP-110 is ironic from a guy whose entire company strategy depends on Bitcoin being a clean store of value. Ordinals and inscriptions are the real spam here
BIP-110 is a temporary measure to reduce fee pressure. Saylor acting like its a permanent change to Bitcoins philosophy is dishonest. The proposal literally says temporary.
the real debate is who gets to decide what counts as spam on a permissionless chain. saylor has a point there even if his delivery is annoying
hard agree with ingrid. temporary becomes permanent the second it suits whoever has the keys
temporary spam throttle while fees spike is common sense. saylor calling it dangerous is pure self interest
843k btc and saylor is writing essays about data payloads. the guy literally cant stop himself lol
843k btc and saylor still has time to write manifestos about data payloads. buddy just buy more coins and chill
Saylor called the cure more dangerous than the condition and honestly thats the part nobody is engaging with. even a temporary soft fork sets a precedent. once you let someone decide what counts as spam, that power doesnt go away
the real question nobody asks: who audits the spam filter. once you let someone censor txs the whole point of bitcoin is gone