BlockBeats News, July 21st, Strategy founder Michael Saylor stated that attempting to modify Bitcoin's rules solely because one disagrees with how others use Bitcoin is a form of statism, contradicting the values of freedom, property rights, free markets, and the Austrian School of Economics upheld by the Bitcoin community. BIP-110 fundamentally seeks to enforce "monetary purity" through statutory means, which is not aligned with the core principle of Bitcoin decentralization.

Earlier on the 19th, Michael Saylor opposed BIP-110, arguing that the governance risks associated with it outweigh the problem it attempts to solve. He believes that the proposal aims to restrict the use of transactions that are still valid and willing to pay fees through consensus rules, potentially escalating disputes over data storage and other use cases to protocol-level rules.

BIP-110 plans to introduce 7 consensus restrictions within an approximately one-year period, including limits on new script pubkey lengths, certain push data and witness item sizes, disabling some Taproot extension paths, among others. It also lists 110 reasons against BIP-110. He opposes the proposal's adoption of a 55% miner signaling threshold, stating that it is significantly lower than BIP-9's 95% standard, and the removal of standard timeouts and FAILED states may increase coordination errors, chain splits, and market uncertainty.

Saylor believes that block space costs, node relay policies, miner strategies, pruning, Layer 2, and other tools can address the relevant issues without altering the consensus. He emphasizes that even if the rules are only temporarily effective, the governance precedent established may persist in the long term, making the "proposed governance solution more dangerous than the problem itself."