Michael Saylor has escalated his campaign against proposed changes to Bitcoin's core software, framing the network's code as a "constitution" and arguing that any alteration to its base layer amounts to an attack on users' economic rights.
Saylor Draws a Constitutional Line
The Strategy chairman laid out his position in a recent thread, extending his opposition well beyond a single proposal. What began as resistance to BIP-110 has broadened into a sweeping stance: covenants, larger block sizes, and essentially any modification to Bitcoin's foundational rules are, in his view, variations of the same offense.
Saylor's argument treats Bitcoin's protocol as something akin to a founding document that should remain fixed. By comparing the code to a constitution, he casts developers pushing for upgrades not as engineers improving software, but as parties threatening the property and economic freedoms of holders.
"Changing the base layer is an attack on economic rights," Saylor argues, casting Bitcoin's code as an inviolable constitution.
The Broader Debate Over Bitcoin's Future
The framing places Saylor firmly in the conservative camp of a long-running dispute within the Bitcoin community over how, or whether, the network should evolve. Supporters of change contend that carefully considered upgrades can expand functionality and keep the protocol competitive, while opponents warn that tinkering with the base layer risks undermining Bitcoin's core value proposition of stability and predictability.
Saylor's stance touches several contested technical topics at once:
- Covenants, which would add new spending conditions to transactions
- Proposals to increase block sizes to boost throughput
- BIP-110 and other base-layer adjustments
By grouping these distinct proposals together as a single "constitutional" threat, Saylor signals that his objection is less about the merits of any individual change and more about the principle of leaving Bitcoin's foundation untouched.
As one of Bitcoin's most vocal corporate advocates, Saylor's public positioning carries weight in the ongoing conversation. His comments are likely to sharpen the divide between those who see immutability as Bitcoin's defining strength and those who believe the network must adapt to endure.