Michael Saylor warns that Bitcoin's greatest threat is internal factions attempting to alter consensus rules, not external attackers, citing concerns about proposals like BIP-110.
Regulation & Gov ·
Michael Saylor has characterized Bitcoin's consensus rules as foundational property rights, arguing that the network's greatest vulnerability lies not with external adversaries but with internal groups seeking to alter those rules for narrow advantage. According to Saylor, even a single corrupted rule implemented today could constrain future economic opportunities and limit technological development, and he draws a parallel to how governments often justify erosion of rights by invoking emergency conditions.
Saylor has specifically targeted several proposals he views as "constitutional offenses," including BIP-110, which he contends would suppress legitimate fee-paying activity. He also critiques larger-block and covenant-related initiatives, stating that expanded blocks would diminish blockspace scarcity while raising bandwidth and validation expenses, while covenants would permanently introduce complexity and new vulnerabilities into the consensus layer. His concern centers on the fee market's role in incentivizing miners, whose block rewards are scheduled to decline through halvings, and he warns that weakening this mechanism would undermine security precisely when it matters most.
Saylor advocates for stability over protocol evolution driven by ambition, holding that upgrades should address genuine necessity alone. The broader implications extend to exchanges, custodians, and developers, whose operations could face jeopardy if consensus control shifts among competing factions, potentially triggering ongoing disputes that degrade Bitcoin's resilience and neutrality.