Saylor: Bitcoin’s Biggest Threat Isn’t Attackers – It’s Those Trying to Rewrite the Rules

Michael Saylor believes Bitcoin has already succeeded but now faces its greatest challenge. He said the biggest threat is not an outside attacker but factions that seek to rewrite the network’s rules for their own interests. The executive chairman and co-founder of Strategy warned that such changes could weaken economic rights and undermine the cryptocurrency’s long-term future. In a recent post on X, Saylor described Bitcoin’s consensus rules as its “constitution,” and said that they define property rights, scarcity, settlement, and the balance of power across the network. As such, changing those rules for the benefit of any particular group would amount to an attack on every BTC participant, both now and in future generations. He said the cryptocurrency has the potential to grow 100-fold and become the foundation of global capital, but argued that even a single “corrupt” rule adopted today could limit future markets, technologies, and economic freedom. According to Saylor, governments and political systems often justify taking away rights by claiming a crisis exists, and said Bitcoin could face a similar outcome if factions gain control of consensus. At the center of his criticism is BIP-110, a proposal Saylor argues would censor valid fee-paying transactions. BIP-110 is a temporary soft fork that “limits data field sizes to reduce blockchain bloat and refocus development on monetary use cases.” The proposal has emerged as one of the most contentious proposals this year. He had previously said that the proposed cure is more dangerous than the condition. Saylor didn’t stop at BIP-110. He also took aim at covenant-related proposals and larger-block proposals, and they may differ in design but share the same “constitutional offense” because they rewrite Bitcoin’s rules and impose additional costs and risks on the wider network. He claimed that larger blocks would reduce blockspace scarcity while increasing bandwidth and validation costs, and covenants would permanently add complexity to consensus and introduce new attack surfaces. The argument also focused on the fact that miners play a critical role in securing Bitcoin by investing capital, while their block subsidy continues to decline through scheduled halvings. He wrote, “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 impact would not be limited to miners. Exchanges, custodians, developers, investors, and holders could also face risks if future rule changes put their businesses and capital in the hands of whichever group controls the consensus process. For Sayl