Michael Saylor and Adam Back have voiced opposition to Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110), arguing that limiting Ordinals through a protocol fork could create greater risks for the Bitcoin network than the inscriptions themselves.

Bitcoin’s Latest Governance Debate Isn’t Really About Ordinals—It’s About the Network’s Future

A fresh disagreement has emerged within the Bitcoin community, but this time the discussion goes beyond NFTs and blockchain inscriptions.

Prominent Bitcoin advocates Michael Saylor, Executive Chairman of Strategy, and Adam Back, CEO of Blockstream, have publicly criticized Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110), a proposal designed to temporarily restrict non-financial data stored on the Bitcoin blockchain.

While both have expressed concerns about Ordinals in the past, neither believes that changing Bitcoin’s consensus rules through a protocol fork is the right solution.

Their position highlights a long-standing principle within the Bitcoin ecosystem: protecting the stability and neutrality of the network often takes priority over solving controversial use cases.

What Is BIP-110 Trying to Change?

Introduced in December 2025 by the pseudonymous developer Dathon Ohm, with support from Ocean founder Luke Dashjr, BIP-110 seeks to reduce blockchain congestion caused by Ordinals inscriptions and other forms of arbitrary data.

Ordinals allow users to attach images, text, and other digital content directly to individual satoshis, effectively enabling NFT-like assets on Bitcoin.

Supporters of the proposal argue that this activity consumes valuable block space, increases transaction fees, and shifts Bitcoin away from its original purpose as a decentralized peer-to-peer payment network.

Under the proposal, restrictions on these types of inscriptions would be introduced for a temporary one-year period rather than becoming a permanent protocol change.

Advocates believe the measure would help restore Bitcoin’s focus on financial transactions while preventing unnecessary blockchain bloat.

Why Michael Saylor Opposes the Proposal

Although Michael Saylor has previously questioned whether Ordinals represent Bitcoin’s most valuable use case, he believes BIP-110 introduces greater risks than the problem it attempts to solve.

In comments shared on social media, Saylor argued that Bitcoin faces many more important challenges than network spam and suggested that altering consensus rules could unintentionally invalidate legitimate transactions.

His broader concern appears to center on preserving confidence in Bitcoin’s stability.

For institutions managing billions of dollars in Bitcoin, predictable network rules are essential. Any proposal perceived as introducing uncertainty—even temporarily—can raise concerns among investors, developers, and infrastructure providers.

Adam Back Warns Against Policing Bitcoin Usage

Blockstream CEO Adam Back offered a different but equally forceful criticism.

Rather than focusing primarily on technical risks, Back argued that Bitcoin’s decentralized nature means no single group should decide which transactions are acceptable.

According to his view, Bitcoin’s permissionless design is one of its defining characteristics. Once users begin deciding which activities deserve space on the blockchain, the network risks moving away from the censorship-resistant principles that inspired its creation.

Back suggested that attempting to regulate transaction types through consensus changes conflicts with Bitcoin’s long-standing cypherpunk philosophy, where neutrality is considered a core feature rather than a flaw.

Support for BIP-110 Remains Extremely Limited

Even with passionate supporters, the proposal currently has little chance of becoming active.

For BIP-110 to move forward, approximately 55% of Bitcoin nodes validating blocks would need to support the proposal during a designated activation period.

Recent network statistics suggest that threshold is nowhere close.

During the latest measurement period, only around 1% of mined blocks signaled support for the proposal, indicating that most miners and node operators have not adopted it.

Without significantly broader community backing, activation remains highly unlikely.

Ordinals Activity Has Already Fallen Sharply

The timing of the debate is particularly interesting because Ordinals usage has declined substantially from its peak.

At the height of the Ordinals boom in August 2023, the Bitcoin blockchain regularly processed more than 400,000 inscriptions per day as NFT-style assets gained widespread attention.

Today, daily inscription activity has fallen below 10,000, representing a dramatic reduction in demand.

That decline has led some Bitcoin developers to question whether protocol-level intervention is still necessary, especially if market activity is naturally cooling.

Supporters of BIP-110, however, argue that even lower activity levels continue to waste valuable block space and should be addressed before another surge occurs.

A Familiar Debate for Long-Time Bitcoin Followers

Veteran Bitcoin users may find the current disagreement familiar.

Between 2015 and 2017, the community experienced the highly divisive Blocksize Wars, during which developers, miners, and businesses argued over increasing Bitcoin’s block size to improve scalability.

That conflict ultimately resulted in the creation of Bitcoin Cash, demonstrating how protocol disagreements can permanently split communities and networks.

Although BIP-110 differs technically, many observers believe the controversy reflects the same underlying question:

Should Bitcoin evolve through protocol intervention, or should the network remain as neutral and unchanged as possible?

History shows that these discussions rarely produce unanimous agreement.

Why This Debate Matters Beyond Ordinals

At first glance, the issue may appear limited to NFTs and blockchain inscriptions.

In reality, the discussion touches much deeper questions about Bitcoin governance.

Should developers actively restrict uses that some participants dislike?

Or should Bitcoin remain an open network where users determine its applications through market demand rather than protocol rules?

Those questions will likely continue shaping future debates involving smart contracts, tokenization, decentralized finance, and other emerging Bitcoin applications.

The outcome of BIP-110 may ultimately matter less than the precedent it could establish.

Personal Analysis: Stability Should Come Before Intervention

In my view, the cautious approach taken by Michael Saylor and Adam Back makes sense.

Ordinals have certainly generated controversy, particularly during periods of elevated transaction fees. However, Bitcoin has consistently demonstrated that market forces often resolve congestion over time without requiring controversial protocol changes.

The dramatic decline in Ordinals activity since 2023 supports that argument.

Introducing consensus changes to address a problem that may already be fading could create more uncertainty than benefit, especially given Bitcoin’s growing role as an institutional reserve asset.

That doesn’t mean concerns about blockchain bloat should be ignored. Instead, improvements should ideally emerge through technical innovation, fee markets, or second-layer solutions such as the Lightning Network rather than changes that risk dividing the community.

Final Thoughts

BIP-110 has reignited one of Bitcoin’s oldest philosophical debates: whether the network should actively shape how people use it or remain completely neutral.

With support currently sitting far below the activation threshold and leading Bitcoin figures openly questioning the proposal, immediate changes appear unlikely.

Nevertheless, the conversation highlights an important reality. As Bitcoin continues evolving beyond simple peer-to-peer payments, disagreements over its future direction are likely to become increasingly common.

Disclaimer: This article is intended for informational and market analysis purposes only. It should not be interpreted as financial, investment, or legal advice. Always conduct your own research before making decisions involving digital assets.

Key Takeaways

• Michael Saylor and Adam Back have publicly opposed Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110).
• The proposal seeks to temporarily restrict Ordinals and other non-financial blockchain inscriptions.
• Critics argue that modifying Bitcoin’s consensus rules could create greater long-term risks than network spam.
• Only about 1% of recent blocks signaled support for BIP-110, far below the required activation threshold.
• Daily Ordinals inscriptions have dropped from over 400,000 at their 2023 peak to fewer than 10,000 recently.
• The debate echoes earlier governance disputes such as Bitcoin’s historic Blocksize Wars.

Read Also: Wall Street Tightens Rules on Prediction Market Trading as Insider Trading Concerns Grow