Michael Saylor and Adam Back have publicly renewed their opposition to BIP-110, a Bitcoin proposal that would temporarily restrict certain non-monetary transactions on the network. The proposal was introduced in December 2025 as a response to Ordinals-style inscriptions and other arbitrary data that supporters say are clogging block space and undermining Bitcoin’s use as peer-to-peer cash.
What BIP-110 proposes
BIP-110 is described as a temporary fork designed to limit transactions seen by its backers as non-essential to Bitcoin’s monetary role. The measure targets NFT-like Ordinals inscriptions and similar data-heavy activity that proponents argue amount to spam on the network. Supporters say the goal is to protect Bitcoin’s core function by reducing congestion caused by uses they consider unrelated to payments.
The proposal is framed by its advocates as a limited intervention rather than a permanent redesign. According to supporters, the restrictions would last for one year and would not invalidate fee-paying transactions over the long term. Backers of the idea argue that Ordinals-related bloat is a genuine issue that deserves a direct technical response.
Why Saylor and Back object
Saylor and Back have both argued that the plan risks damaging Bitcoin more than the activity it is meant to curb. Saylor said the fork could invalidate ordinary transactions and warned that there are “110 things more dangerous to Bitcoin than spam.” His criticism centers on the possibility that an attempt to filter out unwanted uses of the network could also interfere with legitimate activity and weaken confidence in the system.
Back attacked the proposal from a broader philosophical angle. He described BIP-110 as a “quest to police other people,” arguing that decentralization means participants cannot simply impose their preferences on everyone else. In his view, that approach runs against Bitcoin’s cypherpunk foundations as permissionless, censorship-resistant money.
Debate over spam, trust and network rules
The dispute reflects a familiar tension inside Bitcoin between those who want the network optimized primarily for money and those who defend a more open interpretation of what users may do with block space. Supporters of BIP-110 say the rise of inscription activity has created real pressure on the network and that action is needed to preserve Bitcoin’s intended role.
Critics, however, say the proposed remedy is too risky or too narrow. While some maintain the change would not necessarily trigger a chain split, opponents still worry about broader consequences for network economics and trust. Their concern is not only about the direct effects of the rule change, but also about the precedent set by changing Bitcoin’s behavior to exclude categories of transactions that some users dislike.
What remains uncertain
The argument around BIP-110 is not simply about Ordinals. It also touches on how Bitcoin should handle competing uses of scarce block space, and whether technical limits aimed at reducing spam can be introduced without harming neutrality. The proposal’s supporters present it as temporary and targeted, while high-profile critics such as Saylor and Back say even a limited fork could undermine credibility.
The debate leaves unresolved a central question for the Bitcoin community: whether preserving the network’s role as peer-to-peer cash requires stronger filters on non-monetary activity, or whether such filters would conflict with the permissionless design that many see as fundamental to Bitcoin.
Source: cointelegraph.com