Saylor Opposes BIP-110 as Miners Face Final Signaling Window

Michael Saylor has entered the debate over BIP-110, opposing a proposed temporary soft fork that would restrict certain arbitrary-data uses and script behavior at the consensus level. Miners have a final ordinary 2,016-block window to reach a 55% signaling threshold before enforcing nodes could begin to require version bit 4.

Live monitoring at 06:07 UTC on July 20 recorded 11 signaling blocks out of 1,236 tracked in the current difficulty period, about 0.89% support. With 780 blocks remaining in the period, roughly 1,098 additional signaling blocks would be needed to reach the ordinary lock-in threshold of 1,109 blocks, or about 55%. Even if every remaining block signaled, the period would close with about 791 signals and fail to meet the requirement.

Under the proposal’s canonical schedule, the next 2,016-block period, at heights 959,616 through 961,631, is the last full opportunity for ordinary lock-in. If that period also fails to produce at least 1,109 signaling blocks, nodes that opt to enforce BIP-110 would treat version bit 4 as mandatory from heights 961,632 through 963,647 and reject blocks that omit it. Using a nominal 10-minute block interval, the mandatory-signaling window would fall roughly between Aug. 8 and Aug. 22, with forced lock-in at height 963,648 and the latest-path activation at 965,664, near Sept. 5. Actual calendar dates will shift with block production.

BIP-110 proposes a one-year soft fork that would limit certain arbitrary-data and script uses for about 52,416 blocks and would exempt inputs spending UTXOs created before activation. Supporters say the limits would reduce data-storage abuse and protect node resources. Critics warn the proposal’s mandatory-signaling path and potential rejection of transactions currently valid under existing rules could create a precedent for changing transaction validity and raise the risk of a chain split.

Saylor, executive chairman of Strategy, the largest corporate holder of Bitcoin, wrote that he shares the desire to protect the network but called the proposed remedy “more dangerous than the condition.” He argued for preserving neutral base-layer rules, hard consensus, open markets and permissionless innovation, and he warned about the precedent of changing the validity of existing transactions. His public intervention focused attention on the debate but does not alter the technical consensus process.

If the ordinary lock-in fails and enforcing nodes reject blocks that do not include bit 4, the network could temporarily split into competing histories. Mining pools must decide whether to signal for the soft fork. Exchanges and businesses could face choices about which chain governs deposits and withdrawals. Wallet developers need to check Taproot and Miniscript spending paths for compatibility, and node operators must decide whether to enforce the new rules. Version-bit signaling reveals visible levels of support but does not indicate individual miners’ reasons for signaling or not signaling.

With one ordinary window remaining on the early-lock path, the on-chain community is monitoring miner signaling and the plans of node operators, exchanges and wallet providers as the specified block heights approach.