Saylor's Warning: Bitcoin's Constitution Is Under Threat From Inside, Not Outside

§1What Happened

Michael Saylor, executive chairman and co-founder of Strategy, used a post on X to lay out a warning about Bitcoin's future — not from external attackers, but from factions inside the ecosystem trying to alter the network's core rules for their own benefit.

Saylor's framing centers on a single idea: Bitcoin's consensus rules aren't just software settings. He calls them the network's "constitution" — the document that defines property rights, scarcity, how transactions settle, and how power is balanced among miners, developers, exchanges, and holders. Changing that document to favor one faction, he argues, is an attack on every participant, present and future.

Cripple the fee market, and you starve Bitcoin's defenders when the network will need them most. That is not protection. It is disarmament.

The proposal at the center of it: BIP-110

BIP-110 is described as a temporary soft fork intended to limit data field sizes, reducing blockchain bloat and steering development back toward Bitcoin's monetary use case. Saylor argues it would instead censor valid, fee-paying transactions — and has previously said the proposed fix is more dangerous than the problem it claims to solve. The source material notes BIP-110 has become one of the most contentious proposals of the year, though it does not specify who is backing it or its current review status.

Two more targets: covenants and larger blocks

Saylor extends the same objection to covenant-related proposals and proposals for larger blocks. He argues larger blocks would shrink blockspace scarcity while raising bandwidth and validation costs for anyone running a node, and that covenants would permanently add complexity to consensus while opening new attack surfaces. Different mechanisms, he says, but the same underlying offense: rewriting Bitcoin's rules and pushing costs onto the wider network.

§2Why It Matters

The underlying stakes, per Saylor, are civilizational rather than technical. He argues Bitcoin has the potential to become the foundation of global capital and grow substantially from here — but that even one rule change adopted "for good reasons" today could permanently narrow the markets, technologies, and economic freedoms built on top of Bitcoin later. He draws a parallel to how governments and political systems have historically used claims of crisis to justify removing rights, suggesting Bitcoin's consensus process could be vulnerable to the same dynamic if factions gain enough influence.

His stated preference is a conservative one: keep Bitcoin's base layer simple, neutral, scarce, and secure, and reserve protocol upgrades for situations of clear, demonstrated necessity — not ambition.

§3The Numbers

The source material is light on hard figures — this is a governance argument, not a data release. The one figure given is Saylor's own growth projection, which is a claim, not a verified data point.

Since there's no price or on-chain data in the source to chart, here's a plain summary of the three proposals Saylor names and the specific risk he attaches to each:

§4Market Reaction

§5What's Next / Things to Watch

The source frames this as an active, unresolved debate rather than a settled outcome. Based on what's described:

• BIP-110's status as "one of the most contentious proposals this year" suggests continued debate within Bitcoin's developer and mining community, though the source doesn't give a timeline or decision date.
• Covenant and larger-block proposals remain separate, ongoing discussions Saylor has grouped under the same objection.
• Saylor's stated position — minimal changes, only under clear necessity — signals where Strategy is likely to weigh in if any of these proposals advance toward implementation.