In brief
Michael Saylor posted a nine-post thread, drawing thousands of views, declaring Bitcoin's consensus rules a "constitution" and framing any faction that rewrites them as committing economic theft.
He extended his argument beyond BIP-110 to cover covenants and larger-block proposals, calling all of them "different instruments, same constitutional offense."
BIP-110's mandatory signaling window opens around August 9, at block 961,632, with miner support at just 2.64%—well short of the 55% threshold required for activation.
Michael Saylor isn't fighting BIP-110 anymore—he's fighting the very idea that Bitcoin's code can be changed. The Strategy executive chairman posted a nine-post thread to X on Tuesday that reframes the entire protocol debate as a constitutional crisis."Bitcoin has won. Now it must survive victory," Saylor wrote on X. "Its gravest threat is not an enemy at the gates, but corruption from within: factions that invent pretexts, rewrite the rules, and seize economic rights until freedom becomes permission and law becomes loot."Saylor has been attacking a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal dubbed BIP-110 specifically. The "Reduced Data Temporary Softfork" proposal that would restrict non-financial data like Ordinals inscriptions from Bitcoin's blockchain for around one year. Last week, Saylor posted a 110-point essay opposing it under the title "110 Reasons BIP 110 Is a Bad Idea."Based on the current status of the proposal, his point of view seems to have prevailed. Now Saylor lumped BIP-110 together with covenants—smart contract-style restrictions that would let users pre-program how their Bitcoin can be spent in the future—and larger-block proposals, which call for increasing how much data fits in each block to process more transactions. His verdict on all of them: different ideas, same crime.
