Samson Mow Mocks Bitcoin BIP 110 Over Proposed Data Limits

Highlights:

• Samson Mow mocked BIP 110 through satire, warning that transaction limits could create a smaller, controlled Bitcoin network.
• His fictional story described an 84-byte OP_RETURN, delayed blocks, rented mining power, and community excommunication.
• Michael Saylor said BIP 110 would impose monetary purity by fiat and undermine Bitcoin’s free-market principles.

Bitcoin advocate Samson Mow has mocked BIP 110 through a fictional story describing how strict transaction rules could divide the network and create a small, controlled chain. Mow published the satirical post on X on July 22, one day after Strategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor criticized the proposal as an attempt to enforce “monetary purity by fiat.”

Mow’s post begins with the false claim that BIP 110 activated three years ago. However, the statement is part of the satire and should not be treated as a real Bitcoin network update. He imagines a future chain with only 83 remaining users, weak rented mining power, and long delays between blocks. The number 83 refers to BIP 110’s proposed maximum size for an OP_RETURN output.

It's been three years since BIP110 activated. The suitcoiners, corrupt devs, and Blockstream call it Bipcoin, or Bcashjr, and they laugh. But we know the truth. It's the real Bitcoin.

There were 159 of us at activation. Now there are 83.

Nobody planned that number. It just… https://t.co/xU8HRjl4i1

— Samson Mow (@Excellion) July 22, 2026

Samson Mow Uses Satire to Challenge BIP 110

Mow’s fictional story follows a user whose wallet accidentally creates an 84-byte OP_RETURN output, just one byte above the proposed limit. The transaction then remains unconfirmed, while other community members accuse the user of misusing the network. Mow also jokes that people could be pushed out of the community for using valid Bitcoin features.

Through the story, he argues that deciding which transactions are acceptable could create social pressure, unfair enforcement and a smaller, more controlled network. In a follow-up post, Mow said anyone who wants Bitcoin without arbitrary data or unwanted users would need a private blockchain. He added that such a network would also require identity checks to make sure everyone used it only as money. His point was that strict rules over Bitcoin use could clash with the network’s open and permissionless design.

Michael Saylor Calls BIP 110 a Threat to Bitcoin Principles

Saylor made a similar argument on July 21. He said changing Bitcoin’s rules to stop people from using the network in disapproved ways was inconsistent with liberty, property rights, and free markets. According to Saylor, BIP 110 would impose “monetary purity by fiat.”

The impulse to change Bitcoin’s rules merely to prevent others from using Bitcoin in ways you disapprove of is statist and alien to a community rooted in liberty, property rights, free markets, natural law, and Austrian economics. BIP 110 would impose monetary purity by fiat.

— Michael Saylor (@saylor) July 21, 2026

Bitcoin developer Dathon Ohm proposed BIP 110, officially known as the Reduced Data Temporary Soft Fork. The proposal received its BIP number on December 3 last year. It proposes temporary consensus restrictions on arbitrary data stored in Bitcoin transactions. The rules would limit most new output scripts to 34 bytes, allow OP_RETURN outputs of up to 83 bytes, and restrict larger data pushes and witness elements to 256 bytes. Supporters argue that these limits would reduce blockchain bloat and keep Bitcoin focused on payments.

Under its current plan, at least 55% of miners must support the proposal before it can move forward. The proposal also sets a final activation point at block 965,664, which is expected around September.

As of July 22, only 0.93% of miners had shown support during the current difficulty period. So far, just 14 blocks had signaled for BIP 110. This means the proposal is still far from reaching the required level of support. The main debate is whether Bitcoin should use network rules to limit non-payment data. Mow and Saylor believe this could reduce user freedom. They also warn that it may allow a small group to decide how people can use valid Bitcoin transactions.