"The Cure Is More Dangerous": Michael Saylor Slams Bitcoin BIP-110 Proposal Again

Michael Saylor, the founder of the largest Bitcoin treasury company Strategy, has once again raised his voice against the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP-110). In the latest criticism, he called it a bigger risk than the problem it aims to solve. While the proposal seeks to address concerns over non-financial data on the Bitcoin network, Saylor believes that “the proposed cure is more dangerous than the condition."

The criticism comes as the debate on BIP-110 continues to escalate ahead of the expected activation window in August 2026. While advocates claim that the proposal could tackle spam, critics like Saylor argue that the update could bring unintended consequences.

Michael Saylor outlines reasons to reject BIP-110

Strategy’s Michael Saylor has once again rejected the BIP-110 proposal, urging the Bitcoin community not to adopt it. According to Saylor, it is an unnecessary change to the network. Reiterating his opposition, Saylor recently shared a post on X, publishing a lengthy essay titled “110 Reasons BIP 110 is a Bad Idea.” He noted:

“Bitcoin's strength is not that everyone agrees on every use. Its strength is that disagreement is contained by neutral rules and hard consensus. Bitcoin should remain conservative at the base layer. For me, that means rejecting BIP 110.”

Saylor compared BIP-110 to a medical treatment, describing it as a “Bitcoin Iatrogenic Proposal.” This analogy itself explains his overall view that the intervention would cause more harm than the illness it intends to cure. He noted that the network doesn’t need “guardians of purity,” but “guardians of neutrality.”

BIP-110 threatens Bitcoin’s neutrality

For Michael Saylor, BIP-110 is a bad idea that would create bigger problems. He stated that Bitcoin’s consensus rules should remain neutral for the blockchain’s long-term stability. Saylor added that while developers’ intention to reduce spam is understandable, the network should not be judged as good or bad, as long as the transaction is valid and the needed fee is paid.

Further, the Strategy founder added that protocol upgrades should be made only to fix serious technical issues. Unless there are security vulnerabilities, consensus failures, or similar issues, an amendment is unnecessary. Miners and node operators already have the option to reject, ignore, or avoid transactions. So, Saylor argued that there is no need to restrict the way in which people use Bitcoin. He stated,

“It is not a repair for an established consensus failure. BIP 110 does not correct inflation, signature validation, double spending, or a known critical bug. It addresses a contested externality and use case, so the burden of proof should be especially high.”

This is not Saylor's first criticism of BIP-110, as he has already opposed it before. Renowned cryptographer and Bitcoin developer Adam Back is also against the proposal.

Why does the proposal face increasing opposition?

It is worth noting that BIP-110 has sparked intense debate in the crypto space. While the proposal intends to bring a temporary one-year soft fork, critics find more consequences than advantages. The upgrade is expected to add seven new consensus restrictions, including limits on large transactions and certain script executions.

Supporters argue that the proposal would help reduce spam and attacks, keeping the network safe. It will also help BTC to focus on its primary role as a cryptocurrency rather than a platform to store arbitrary data.  At the same time, critics state that BIP-110 could restrict legitimate users from performing regular tasks.