Saylor: Bitcoin's Biggest Threat Isn't Attackers - It's Those Trying to Rewrite the Rules
Michael Saylor, executive chairman and co-founder of Strategy, has warned that Bitcoin’s greatest challenge comes not from external attackers but from factions seeking to rewrite the network’s rules for their own interests. In a recent post on X, Saylor described Bitcoin’s consensus rules as its ‘constitution,’ defining property rights, scarcity, settlement, and the balance of power. He argued that changing these rules for any group’s benefit would amount to an attack on all Bitcoin participants, present and future.
Saylor believes Bitcoin has the potential to grow 100-fold and become the foundation of global capital, but warned that even a single ‘corrupt’ rule change could limit future markets, technologies, and economic freedom. He drew parallels to governments justifying rights erosion by claiming a crisis, and said Bitcoin could face similar outcomes if factions gain control of consensus.
Central to his criticism is BIP-110, a temporary soft fork proposal that limits data field sizes to reduce blockchain bloat. Saylor argues it would censor valid fee-paying transactions, calling the proposed cure more dangerous than the condition. He also targeted covenant-related and larger-block proposals, which he says share a ‘constitutional offense’ by rewriting Bitcoin’s rules, imposing additional costs and risks on the network.
Larger blocks would reduce blockspace scarcity while increasing bandwidth and validation costs, he argued, while covenants would add permanent complexity and new attack surfaces. Saylor emphasized that miners play a critical role by investing capital, with block subsidies declining through halvings. ‘Cripple the fee market, and you starve Bitcoin’s defenders when the network will need them most,’ he wrote. ‘That is not protection. It is disarmament.’
The impact would extend beyond miners to exchanges, custodians, developers, and holders, potentially exposing them to risks if future rule changes empower whichever group controls consensus. Saylor warned that political competition over consensus could lead to ongoing protocol disputes and weaken Bitcoin’s security.
He advocates keeping the base layer simple, neutral, scarce, and secure, with upgrades limited to cases of clear necessity.