Bitcoin Leaders Back and Saylor Reject BIP 110 Proposal

Adam Back and Michael Saylor have publicly opposed Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110, warning that the protocol change could fracture the network and trigger a contentious fork. The two influential figures cited design conflicts with Bitcoin's foundational principles in their rejection of the proposal, which aims to formalize support for Ordinals inscriptions on the blockchain.

Back, the cryptographer and Blockstream CEO, warned that implementing BIP 110 could divide the Bitcoin community and potentially trigger a network fork. Saylor, the billionaire entrepreneur and MicroStrategy chairman who has emerged as one of Bitcoin's most vocal institutional advocates, echoed similar concerns, arguing that BIP 110 conflicts with Bitcoin's decentralized and permissionless design principles.

The proposal touches on one of the most divisive topics in Bitcoin development: Ordinals. The protocol, introduced in early 2023, enables users to inscribe arbitrary data onto individual satoshis, the smallest unit of Bitcoin. This capability has spawned a parallel ecosystem of digital artifacts and NFT-like assets on Bitcoin. BIP 110 appears designed to formalize and potentially expand this functionality at the protocol level, rather than leaving it as an emergent property of Bitcoin's existing transaction structure.

The governance battle reflects deeper philosophical tensions within Bitcoin's development community. Ordinals proponents argue that Bitcoin's permissionless design should accommodate all transaction types, including inscriptions, without requiring protocol-level blessing. They contend that formalizing Ordinals support would improve clarity and user experience while legitimizing an economic activity that has generated significant fee revenue for miners. Over the past two years, however, Ordinals transaction volume has declined substantially from its 2023 peak, suggesting waning market enthusiasm for the use case.

Back and Saylor's opposition carries weight. Back helped design Bitcoin's underlying cryptography and has shaped protocol development for over a decade through Blockstream's research. Saylor has accumulated over 17,000 BTC for MicroStrategy and positioned himself as a bridge between institutional finance and the Bitcoin community. Their joint stance signals that a meaningful faction of Bitcoin's influential players views BIP 110 as a threat to the network's core values.

The fork risk they cite is not hypothetical. Bitcoin's 2017 block size debate resulted in the creation of Bitcoin Cash, a separate chain that split the community and diluted the original network's narrative dominance. More recently, the Taproot activation in 2021 demonstrated that even widely supported upgrades require careful consensus building to avoid triggering contentious disagreements. A proposal that formalizes Ordinals functionality, which many Bitcoin maximalists view as wasteful blockchain bloat, carries similar fork potential.

The debate also reflects a broader question about Bitcoin's purpose. Maximalists argue Bitcoin should remain a pure settlement layer and store of value, with layer-two solutions handling complex applications. Ordinals supporters counter that Bitcoin's immutability and security make it an ideal base for digital artifacts, and that the protocol should remain neutral about what data users inscribe.

For now, BIP 110 faces significant headwinds. Back and Saylor's opposition, combined with the declining Ordinals activity, suggests the proposal lacks the consensus required for implementation. Bitcoin's governance model requires broad agreement among developers, miners, and node operators before protocol changes activate. A proposal opposed by figures of Back and Saylor's stature is unlikely to reach that threshold without demonstrating clear benefits that outweigh community concerns.

The next phase will depend on how BIP 110 advocates respond to these objections and whether they can build a case that the proposal strengthens rather than weakens Bitcoin's design principles.