Michael Saylor posted a nine-post thread that drew thousands of views, arguing that Bitcoin’s consensus rules amount to a "constitution" and that any faction seeking to rewrite them is committing economic theft.

He widened his criticism beyond BIP-110 to include covenants and larger-block proposals, describing them as "different instruments, same constitutional offense."

BIP-110’s mandatory signaling window opens around August 9 at block 961,632, and miner support is currently 2.64%, well below the 55% threshold required for activation.

The Strategy executive chairman posted the thread on X on Tuesday, recasting the broader Bitcoin protocol debate as a constitutional crisis rather than a technical disagreement.

"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 specifically targeting a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal called BIP-110, or the "Reduced Data Temporary Softfork." The proposal would restrict non-financial data such as Ordinals inscriptions from Bitcoin’s blockchain for about one year. Last week, Saylor published a 110-point essay opposing the proposal under the headline "110 Reasons BIP 110 Is a Bad Idea."

Based on the proposal’s current status, his position appears to have prevailed. In his latest thread, however, Saylor grouped BIP-110 together with covenants, which are smart contract-style restrictions that would allow users to pre-program how their Bitcoin can be spent in the future, and larger-block proposals, which would increase how much data fits into each block to process more transactions. He said all of them amount to the same problem, folding the argument into a longer-running dispute over whether Bitcoin should prioritize strict limits on what gets recorded on-chain or expanded flexibility for new uses.

"Some proposals, like BIP-110, censor valid fee-paying transactions. Others add covenant machinery. Others demand larger blocks," he wrote. "Different instruments, same constitutional offense: a faction rewrites Bitcoin's rules and imposes its agenda, costs, and risks on everyone."

The constitutional analogy is central to Saylor’s argument. In his framing, Bitcoin’s consensus rules—the shared set of rules all nodes and miners follow to determine what counts as a valid transaction—function like a country’s founding law. Changing those rules to suit a particular faction’s preferences, he argued, is not simply software maintenance. It is an attack on economic rights.

"Bitcoin's consensus rules are its constitution," he wrote. "To rewrite them for the convenience of any faction is to attack the economic rights of every participant today and every generation to come."

"Protocol changes must be rare, conservative, and driven by necessity, not ambition. Defend Bitcoin's constitution. Defend the future," he added.

BIP-110’s principal advocate is its pseudonymous author, Dathon Ohm, with longtime Bitcoin developer Luke Dashjr playing a key role in drafting the original proposal. Support for the measure comes mainly from a relatively small anti-spam contingent around Bitcoin Knots and node operators who argue that Bitcoin should remain focused on peer-to-peer money rather than becoming a permanent storage layer for Ordinals, tokens, images, and other arbitrary data.

Supporters of the proposal argue that miners collect only a one-time fee for including such payloads, while full node operators must bear the ongoing storage, bandwidth, and validation costs. From their perspective, this is not censorship but a way to protect a scarce public resource: blockchain capacity.

Fred Krueger, posting under the handle #BIP-110 on X, responded by saying the critique groups together three opposing policy directions that are not a single coherent faction or agenda. "BIP-110 reduces certain permitted data uses; covenants add functionality; larger blocks add capacity," he wrote. "They are not one coherent faction or agenda. The only shared property is that they propose changing…"

BIP-110’s mandatory signaling window—the point at which nodes running the proposal’s software would begin rejecting non-compliant blocks—opens around August 9 at block 961,632. According to the BIP-110 signaling dashboard, miner support is 2.64%, well below the 55% required for activation.