Bitcoin’s internal debate over how to curb network spam and non-monetary data has intensified after Michael Saylor published a detailed critique of Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110). In a long post on X.com dated Sunday, Saylor argued that a proposed temporary fork to restrict certain types of data on the Bitcoin network is the wrong solution—despite acknowledging that the underlying concerns raised by supporters are legitimate.

Introduced in December 2025, BIP-110 has become one of the more prominent protocol-level disputes in the Bitcoin development community since the Blocksize Wars of 2015–2017, when scalability questions sparked intense disagreement over whether changes should risk a chain split. Saylor’s intervention comes as Ordinals activity has cooled from its 2023 peak, raising questions about how urgent such a protocol change really is.

Key takeaways

• Saylor supports the goals behind BIP-110—such as protecting validation and affordable payments—but rejects the proposal’s mechanism as a remedy.
• BIP-110 would only move forward if 55% of validating nodes signal support during a Bitcoin “block period,” and recent support levels have been low.
• Ordinals inscriptions have fallen sharply from their August 2023 highs, potentially reducing the immediate pressure driving urgency for protocol-level fixes.
• The debate mirrors past governance tensions, including the Blocksize Wars, where disagreements over enforcement and network rules frequently threatened to split the ecosystem.

Saylor’s critique: shared goals, different fix

According to Saylor’s post on X.com, his argument is aimed at the proposal itself rather than people who support it. He said many Bitcoiners he respects back BIP-110 for reasons including keeping validation accessible, shielding node operators from unwanted costs, preserving low-cost payments, and preventing Bitcoin from drifting into general-purpose data storage.

Saylor emphasized that he agrees with those objectives but disagrees with the proposed remedy. In the same post, he framed his stance as a call to preserve “neutral rules, hard consensus, open markets, and permissionless innovation,” while stressing that vigorous disagreement should not turn into personal factionalism.

As of Sunday at 12 p.m. ET, Saylor’s post had accumulated 879,000 views, along with 692 replies and 852 retweets, highlighting how quickly the discussion has spread beyond core developer circles.

What BIP-110 would change—and why approval is difficult

Protocol changes like BIP-110 are not automatically activated; they depend on broad agreement among validators. BIP-110 cannot be enacted unless 55% of Bitcoin nodes validating blocks signal support for the proposal during a Bitcoin block “period.”

Based on the latest period referenced in reporting, period number 475—covering blocks 955,584 to 957,599—showed only about 1% of blocks in support. That figure suggests that, even if the proposal is technically live for discussion, it currently lacks the signaling momentum required for activation.

This approval threshold matters for investors and operators because it determines whether the change is likely to take effect in practice versus remaining a contested idea within the dev community. A proposal that fails to reach the required support level may still influence future policy debates, but it is less likely to produce immediate network-level consequences.

The spam-bloat dispute meets a cooling Ordinals market

The BIP-110 controversy is tied to concerns about “non-monetary transactions” and data patterns that proponents describe as spamming. BIP-110 was introduced to limit Ordinals-style inscriptions and other arbitrary data that supporters argue can overload the network and distract from Bitcoin’s primary function as peer-to-peer cash.

However, the political and technical urgency of such proposals is harder to gauge when on-chain activity is shifting. The dispute comes while Ordinals activity is reported to be near all-time lows. According to Dune Analytics data cited in the source material, fewer than 10,000 Ordinals are inscribed into the Bitcoin blockchain daily over the last month—down from more than 400,000 per day during its peak in August 2023.

Lower inscription volumes can change the risk calculus for both sides of the debate. Supporters of protocol limits may argue that even reduced activity can still set harmful precedents for how data is used on-chain. Opponents may counter that if demand and congestion pressure have already eased, a fork—especially one that introduces restrictions—becomes harder to justify without more consensus.

Backers, critics, and echoes of earlier Bitcoin governance fights

BIP-110 was introduced by pseudonymous developer “Dathon Ohm,” with backing that includes Ocean protocol founder Luke Dashjr, according to the source. On the opposition side, Blockstream CEO Adam Back is cited as a vocal critic of BIP-110.

Back has previously described the proposal as an attempt to police other people, arguing that Bitcoin’s decentralization should prevent any faction from imposing its preferred rules on the broader community. The objection is framed not only as technical but ideological—rooted in the cypherpunk principle of permissionless, censorship-resistant money.

Meanwhile, supporters of BIP-110 argue that Ordinals-driven bloat represents a serious threat that demands action. They also maintain that BIP-110 would not cause a chain split, a concern raised by those wary of temporary restrictions. Supporters further argue the fork is intended to be limited—described as a one-year constraint—so that it would not invalidate fee-paying transactions over the long run.

These arguments have led to parallels with the Blocksize Wars between 2015 and 2017, when disagreements over how to scale Bitcoin and whether to risk contentious changes sharpened into a broader debate about enforcement and legitimacy. In both cases, the underlying question is the same: how should the network evolve under pressure while preserving decentralized governance?

In this current cycle, the data points being used by each side are not symmetrical. Saylor is not denying that bloat concerns exist; he is questioning whether the governance approach—introducing temporary restrictions through a fork-like mechanism—is compatible with Bitcoin’s broader commitment to neutrality and hard consensus. At the same time, low recent Ordinals activity weakens one common justification for immediate intervention: that the network is actively under severe strain from inscriptions.

As the debate continues, readers should watch two things closely: whether BIP-110’s support signals rise toward the 55% activation threshold in subsequent block periods, and whether Ordinals activity meaningfully returns or stays subdued. Those developments will likely determine whether the proposal remains a theoretical flashpoint—or becomes a real test of how Bitcoin manages conflict over data usage and network rules.

Strategy executive chairman Michael Saylor took to social media on Sunday to detail his “110 reasons” why a proposed temporary fork to limit non-monetary transactions on the Bitcoin network, or BIP-110, is a bad idea.

Bitcoin Improvement Proposal-110 was introduced in December 2025 to stop nonfungible token-like Ordinals inscriptions and other arbitrary data from spamming the network and to preserve BTC’s main use as a peer-to-peer cash system.

In a roughly 3,700 word post on X.com, the man in control of the largest Bitcoin (BTC) corporate treasury made a case for what he said are “neutral rules, hard consensus, open markets, and permissionless innovation.”

Source: Michael Saylor on X.com

“Many Bitcoiners I respect support BIP 110. They want to keep validation accessible, protect node operators from unwanted costs and content, preserve affordable payments, and keep Bitcoin focused on sound money rather than general-purpose data storage. Those are serious concerns. I share the objectives. I disagree about the remedy,” Saylor said. He added:

“This article critiques the proposal, not the people behind it. I assume good faith. Bitcoin is strongest when we can disagree vigorously without mistaking allies for enemies.”

As of 12 p.m. ET, on Sunday, the post had been viewed 879,000 times, with 692 replies and 852 retweets.

BIP-110 is one of the more notable protocol-level disputes in the Bitcoin development community since the Blocksize Wars between 2015 and 2017, when ecosystem participants debated whether it was worth risking a chain split to raise the block size limit for scalability. 

The proposal was introduced by pseudonymous Bitcoin developer “Dathon Ohm” with the support of Ocean protocol founder Luke Dashjr. Opponents include Blockstream CEO Adam Back.

Related: Bitcoin nodes running BIP-110 crosses 2% as spam wars heat up

Little certainty on BHP-110 approval

To be sure, BIP-110 won’t be activated unless 55% of Bitcoin nodes validating blocks are in support of the proposal across a Bitcoin block “period.”

In the last period, period number 475 between block 955,584 and 957,599, only 1% of blocks were in support.

The dispute comes at a time when Ordinals activity is at near all-time lows, with fewer than 10,000 Ordinals inscribed into the Bitcoin blockchain on a daily basis over the last month, down from the more than 400,000 seen during its peak in August 2023.

Change in daily Ordinals inscriptions since December 2022.
Source: Dune Analytics

Bock has previously criticized BIP-110, describing it as a “quest to police other people.” 

He said Bitcoin’s decentralization should mean “you can’t impose your views on others,” calling it incompatible with BTC’s cypherpunk ethos of permissionless, censorship-resistant money.

Dashjr and other BIP-110 supporters have called Ordinals-driven bloat a “serious threat” to the network, prompting the need for an imminent fix.

They have also argued BIP-110 wouldn’t cause a chain split, as many fear, while adding that the BIP-110 fork imposes a temporary one-year limit and thus wouldn’t invalidate fee-paying transactions over the long term.

Features: From Bitcoin critics to blockchain believers: The 5 biggest crypto backflips

Michael Saylor, executive chairman and co-founder of Strategy, has come out swinging against a new proposal to clean up Bitcoin’s ‘spam,’ arguing that it could fundamentally alter how the world’s largest blockchain operates.

The Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 110, aimed at temporarily restricting arbitrary data to focus on the core monetary functions, is a threat to the main principles of the network, Saylor explained in a comprehensive critique published on X, titled “110 reasons BIP-110 is a bad idea.”

“The proposed cure is more dangerous than the condition,” Saylor said in the recent detailed analysis. “BIP 110 would use consensus to narrow valid activity, constrain future options, complicate deployment, and establish a precedent it cannot later erase.”

Saylor’s primary objection is based on the “no-questions-asked” nature of money. “Bitcoin cannot read intent,” Saylor writes. “The network cannot know whether bytes represent an image, a proof, a contract, metadata, an authentication record, or a future application,” argued.

By banning “spam,” the protocol would effectively elevate human judgment into protocol law, effectively turning Bitcoin’s conservatism upside down.

‘Too aggressive’

Saylor is the latest bitcoin executive to weigh in on this highly debated topic among the Bitcoin community.

The Electronic Transactions Association (ETA) is signaling a more constructive stance toward Bitcoin, with CEO Jason Oxman saying the group does not oppose the network and is open to partnerships—especially when customer demand and merchant needs point that way. Speaking in an interview with CoinDesk, Oxman framed the ETA’s position as technology-neutral, while pointing to recent activity with BitPay as evidence that Bitcoin-related innovation is on the table.

The shift is also reflected in the ETA’s membership changes: on August 6, the trade group announced BitPay—an Atlanta-based Bitcoin payments provider—as the first virtual currency company to join the ETA. The association represents major players in electronic payments, including Visa, MasterCard, Amazon, and PayPal, and said the addition underscores its intent to engage with emerging technologies as the payments industry evolves.

Key takeaways

• ETA CEO Jason Oxman said the organization does not advocate for Bitcoin and has not taken a position against other technologies; it treats electronic transactions as the common denominator.
• BitPay joining the ETA on August 6 marks the first virtual currency company membership, suggesting traditional payments groups may be willing to cooperate with Bitcoin processors.
• Oxman cited the Bitcoin Foundation’s role in educating ETA members—dating back to an ETA event in 2013—as part of why members began viewing Bitcoin as “an interesting development.”
• In discussing New York’s BitLicense proposal, Oxman argued regulators should avoid reflexive rules for “something new” and instead conduct deeper research into how Bitcoin systems and consumer protections work.

Why the ETA is talking more openly about Bitcoin

Oxman’s comments emphasize that the ETA’s mandate is broader than any single payment network. In the CoinDesk interview, he said the association’s stance is centered on facilitating electronic transactions, which means the transaction format ultimately follows what merchants and customers choose.

That framing matters because it positions Bitcoin less as an “alternative” and more as another option within the payments stack—one that may be integrated if it demonstrates value and operational safety. Oxman specifically pointed to the ETA’s partnership with BitPay as a concrete example of how the group approaches innovation without automatically dismissing new models.

By describing the ETA as “open to work with emerging tech startups, including Bitcoin-related companies,” Oxman also made demand the deciding factor. In other words, the ETA’s engagement appears less like advocacy for a particular technology and more like an attempt to stay relevant as customers and merchants experiment with Bitcoin payments.

BitPay membership and what it signals to traditional payments

The ETA press release introducing BitPay as a member described the decision as part of the group’s commitment to embrace new technology. BitPay’s entrance into an association that includes payment giants is significant, even if it does not automatically translate into endorsement of Bitcoin across the entire membership.

Oxman suggested the ETA’s outlook has changed as members gain more practical context. He referred to an earlier event in 2013 where Bitcoin Foundation general counsel Patrick Murck discussed Bitcoin in business-focused terms. Oxman said Murck’s presentation helped ETA members see Bitcoin as a relevant development for the industry, adding that at least one ETA member proceeded to strike a deal with a Bitcoin processor.

That historical detail points to a wider dynamic: partnerships in payments often come after repeated exposure to regulatory and operational questions. The ETA’s decision to bring BitPay in—and Oxman’s explanation of why—implies that Bitcoin’s perceived legitimacy is improving among mainstream payment stakeholders, at least in the context of how Bitcoin processing can fit into established transaction workflows.

The BitLicense debate: consumer protection vs. innovation

Oxman also addressed New York’s BitLicense proposal and the regulatory scrutiny surrounding it. He acknowledged that regulators’ concerns are understandable, particularly around consumer protection in novel payment systems. In his view, when alternative payment options are not well established and widely deployed, regulators feel more compelled to step in to protect consumers where those protections are not already present.

That stance reflects a tension at the heart of Bitcoin policy discussions: overly strict rules can raise compliance barriers and slow experimentation, while weak oversight can leave users exposed. Oxman argued that the ETA had previously worked through regulatory uncertainty when new payment methods—such as PayPal—arrived, spending significant time ensuring government action did not constrain innovation.

But he said New York should not treat Bitcoin as a special case that must be regulated using reflexive logic. Instead, he urged the NY Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) to conduct a more in-depth examination of Bitcoin’s technical operation and the additional measures that Bitcoin providers—including Bitcoin processors—take to protect both consumers and merchants.

Importantly, Oxman’s position is not a call to ignore regulation; it is a call for regulation built around how Bitcoin works in practice, rather than rules applied because the technology is new.

Regulatory timeline shifts in New York

Meanwhile, New York’s BitLicense review process is still moving. According to earlier coverage from Cointelegraph, the NYDFS superintendent Benjamin Lawsky extended the public comment period on the BitLicense proposal by 45 days, pushing the deadline to October 21. The extension followed a joint letter in which BTC China, Huobi, and OkCoin—referred to by Cointelegraph as the “Big three”—outlined concerns and requested changes to the proposal.

For investors and market participants, these procedural updates can be as important as the policy itself. Longer comment windows often indicate that regulators are weighing industry feedback more deliberately—potentially affecting how strict compliance obligations are ultimately framed. It also means companies preparing for the BitLicense regime may face shifting expectations as regulators refine their approach.

As the ETA continues building relationships with Bitcoin-focused firms like BitPay and New York’s BitLicense review proceeds through an extended comment period, the key question for the market is how regulators will translate concerns about consumer protection into rules that reflect Bitcoin’s actual system design—and whether mainstream payment stakeholders continue to increase engagement as compliance certainty improves.

Japanese logistics group AZ-COM Maruwa Holdings plans to introduce the yen-backed JPYC stablecoin for payments to about 2,300 partner carriers and independent drivers, according to a Nikkei report cited by Crypto Briefing.

The move is “expected to become Japan’s first large-scale corporate use of JPYC.”The company also plans to invest ¥1 billion in JPYC and form a business partnership with the stablecoin issuer. The rollout would move JPYC beyond retail tests and crypto services into routine business payments across a large logistics network.

AZ-COM Maruwa brings JPYC into logistics payments

AZ-COM Maruwa Holdings operates third-party logistics, transportation, warehousing and delivery services in Japan. Its planned use of JPYC would cover outsourcing and other payments made to a broad network of transport partners, including individual truck drivers.

The reported ¥1 billion investment also ties the logistics group directly to JPYC’s growth. The companies have not yet disclosed a detailed rollout schedule or explained how each partner will receive, hold or convert the tokens. Those operating details will determine how widely drivers and carriers use JPYC instead of immediately redeeming it for yen.

JPYC began issuing its regulated yen-backed stablecoin on October 27, 2025. The token maintains a one-to-one link with the yen and uses bank deposits and Japanese government bonds as reserve assets. It operates on public blockchain networks and can be issued or redeemed through JPYC EX.

The AZ-COM Maruwa plan follows other attempts to move JPYC into daily payments. As reported by crypto.news, Lawson plans to test JPYC payments at a Tokyo convenience store in August through a point-of-sale system. The trial will let customers pay using a smartphone-linked payment system.

Japan’s stablecoin market adds more use cases

JPYC is also expanding into financial products. As reported by crypto.news, Metaplanet and JPYC recently began studying Bitcoin-backed credit products that could use JPYC for lending and settlement. The project is examining how Bitcoin collateral and yen-denominated stablecoin liquidity could work together. Payment infrastructure is developing at the same time.As reported by crypto.news, LINE NEXT plans to support JPYC through Unifi Pay, a stablecoin payment service scheduled for a wider launch in the third quarter. The service is designed to let users in Japan top up local stablecoins from bank accounts after identity checks.

The logistics rollout would differ from smaller consumer pilots because it involves thousands of businesses and independent drivers receiving payments through the same stablecoin system. If implemented at the reported scale, it would test JPYC’s ability to handle regular corporate settlement rather than isolated retail purchases.

Japan is also tightening rules around stablecoin reserves as adoption grows.Japanese regulators have set conditions for government bonds held as reserve assets. JPYC has said it plans to keep most reserve proceeds in Japanese government bonds and the remainder in bank deposits.

AZ-COM Maruwa’s planned rollout therefore arrives as JPYC moves into retail payments, lending experiments and broader payment infrastructure. The ¥1 billion investment adds a direct corporate commitment, while the proposed payments to 2,300 logistics partners would provide one of the clearest tests yet of whether a regulated yen stablecoin can work in everyday business settlement.