Two of Bitcoin’s most influential people came out against it on Saturday. Strategy founder Michael Saylor wrote that “there are 110 things more dangerous to Bitcoin than spam,” arguing that the proposal “turns a spam dispute into a consensus change that would invalidate some currently valid, fee-paying transactions.” The precedent, he wrote, is the real danger.
There are 110 things more dangerous to Bitcoin than spam.
BIP 110 turns a spam dispute into a consensus amendment that would invalidate some currently valid, fee-paying transactions.
That precedent is the danger. We should save our energy for 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 case at length to the newcomers backing the proposal.
“Bitcoin respectfully says no to what you want,” he said, adding that their real recourse if they’re not convinced is to band together and reject, but that “bitcoin won’t join that.”
The support data shows what the broader market really thinks. BIP 110 does not rely on the usual route of overwhelming miner approval, but uses a user-activated soft fork, a mechanism where nodes enforce a rule, regardless of whether miners agree or not, set at a miner-signaling threshold instead of the traditional 95%.
Support is absent even at the significantly lower beam.
Miner signaling has never risen above about 1% in any period and stands at zero in the current one, with no major mining pool behind it, according to the BIP 110 signal monitor.
Among the nodes that store and forward the chain, adoption is in the low single digits, driven almost entirely by Bitcoin Knots, an alternative to the dominant Bitcoin Core software.
