Community Trust ScoreVerified
Michael Saylor and Adam Back want nothing to do with BIP-110. The two Bitcoin heavyweights have gone public with sharp objections to the proposal, which targets how Bitcoin Ordinals get managed — and the backlash is getting loud.
BIP-110 is basically a technical overhaul aimed at changing the transaction process around Ordinals. The idea, at least on paper, is improvement. But Saylor and Back aren’t buying it. Both men carry serious weight in Bitcoin circles — Saylor as one of the most visible corporate Bitcoin advocates on the planet, Back as a cypherpunk and the CEO of Blockstream — and their combined pushback is hard to ignore. Their core argument: BIP-110 could do real damage to Bitcoin’s decentralized structure, the very thing that makes the network worth fighting for.
Not a minor complaint.
What BIP-110 Actually Proposes
The proposal wants to change how Ordinals — essentially digital artifacts inscribed on individual satoshis — are processed on the Bitcoin blockchain. Ordinals became a flashpoint a couple of years back, splitting the community between those who saw them as creative expansion and those who saw them as bloat. Transaction activity in the Ordinals market has dropped pretty significantly over the past two years. Volume is down. Interest has cooled. So the timing of BIP-110 is already raising eyebrows — why push a major change now, when the market it targets has been shrinking?
Proponents probably argue the proposal could spark renewed interest. Critics say that’s wishful thinking, and that the risks far outweigh any potential upside.
The specific mechanics of what BIP-110 changes remain somewhat murky in terms of public documentation. No authors of the proposal have issued an official comment. There’s no set timeline for approval, rejection, or revision. The Bitcoin community is, for now, just arguing.
Decentralization Is the Real Fight Here
That argument keeps circling back to one word: decentralization. Saylor and Back both say BIP-110 could push Bitcoin toward centralization — a direction they’re not willing to accept. For them, Bitcoin’s foundational principles aren’t negotiable. Any proposal that chips away at the network’s decentralized nature, even accidentally, is a problem.
And it’s not just those two. Broader community voices are raising similar flags. Some developers and users think BIP-110 needs serious modifications before anyone should even think about implementation. Others want it scrapped entirely. The community hasn’t reached consensus, and that’s putting it mildly.
What’s clear is that the debate has gotten intense. Bitcoin governance debates usually do. The network has no CEO, no board, no single authority to make a call. Everything moves through rough consensus, and rough consensus on something this contentious can take a long time — or never arrive at all.
So where does BIP-110 stand? Unclear. Probably in limbo for a while.
Ordinals Market Adds Pressure
The declining Ordinals market makes the whole conversation more complicated. Two years of shrinking transaction volumes means the ecosystem BIP-110 is trying to address is already under stress. If the proposal goes through and causes centralization concerns to materialize, critics say it could make things worse. If it doesn’t go through, the market keeps drifting without any structural intervention.
Neither outcome feels great. And that’s kind of where Bitcoin governance debates end up — no clean answers, just tradeoffs.
Some stakeholders are calling for a slower, more careful review process. They want the proposal’s long-term effects on network integrity mapped out before anyone moves. That’s a reasonable ask, though it doesn’t guarantee the debate gets resolved any faster.
Back and Saylor haven’t softened their positions. No revised statements, no walk-backs. They think BIP-110 is the wrong move, and they’re saying so publicly.
The authors of BIP-110 haven’t responded. No comment, no rebuttal, no timeline. That silence is probably frustrating for people on both sides who want the debate to actually go somewhere.
Bitcoin’s track record with contentious proposals is long and messy. Some get adopted after years of debate. Some get quietly dropped. Some stay in permanent limbo, referenced occasionally but never resolved. BIP-110 could land anywhere on that spectrum.
For now, the community stays divided. Saylor and Back are on one side. The proposal’s potential supporters are on the other. And the Ordinals market, still cooling after two years of declining activity, sits at the center of a fight that doesn’t have an end date.
Hub: Bitcoin price, news, and analysis
Frequently Asked Questions
What does BIP-110 propose to change about Bitcoin Ordinals?
BIP-110 aims to alter how Bitcoin Ordinals are managed and processed on the blockchain, with the stated goal of improving their transaction process, though critics say it risks centralizing the network.
Why are Michael Saylor and Adam Back against BIP-110?
Both Saylor and Back argue that BIP-110 could compromise Bitcoin’s decentralized nature and undermine the foundational principles they consider non-negotiable for the network’s integrity.
