Two of the most influential figures in Bitcoin spoke out against the project on Saturday. The strategy’s founder, Michael Saylor, said that “there are 110 things more dangerous to Bitcoin than spam,” saying the proposal “transforms a spam dispute into a consensus change that would invalidate certain currently valid paid transactions.” Precedent, he writes, constitutes the real danger.
There are 110 things more dangerous to Bitcoin than spam.
BIP 110 transforms a spam dispute into a consensus change that would invalidate certain currently valid paid transactions.
This precedent is the danger. We should save our energy for the threats that really matter. $BTC https://t.co/LoSkl9XSo1
– Michael Saylor (@saylor) July 11, 2026
Adam Back, the Blockstream co-founder whose hashcash design is cited in the Bitcoin white paper, made a similar argument in more detail, addressed to newcomers supporting the proposition.
“Bitcoin respectfully says no to what you want,” he said, adding that their real recourse, if they are not convinced, is to band together and shell out, but that “Bitcoin will not join it.”
Supporting data shows what the market as a whole really thinks. BIP 110 does not rely on the usual route of overwhelming miner approval, but uses a user-activated soft fork, a mechanism in which nodes enforce a rule, whether miners agree or not, set at a miner reporting threshold of 55% rather than the traditional 95%.
Support is absent even at this significantly lower bar.
Miner signaling has never exceeded around 1% in any given period and is sitting at zero in the current period, with no major mining pool behind it, according to signaling monitor BIP 110.
Among nodes that store and relay the chain, adoption is in the low single digits, driven almost entirely by Bitcoin Knots, an alternative to the dominant Bitcoin Core software.
