Original | Odaily Planet Daily
Author | Golem
As the mandatory activation window in August approaches, discussions about the BIP-110 proposal have heated up again recently.
BIP-110 was proposed by Dathon Ohm in December 2025 and has received support from Bitcoin Core developer Luke Dashjr. This proposal aims to restrict arbitrary/non-monetary data in Bitcoin transactions within the next year, primarily targeting large data storage like Ordinals and Bitcoin NFTs, hoping to reduce "spam transactions" on the network and keep Bitcoin focused on its monetary function.
This proposal has been controversial since its introduction, but data shows that BIP-110 currently lacks support from mainstream miners and nodes. The activation threshold for BIP-110 is 55%. Statistics show that current miner support is less than 1%, and out of a total of 102,674 nodes on the network, only 15,035 nodes are willing to enforce BIP-110, a proportion of 14.64%.
BIP-110 Miner and Node Support Rate
Typically, a proposal with such low support cannot pass on the Bitcoin network, but the stubbornness of BIP-110 lies in the fact that even without consensus, nodes supporting BIP-110 will enforce it. If BIP-110 does not reach the 55% activation threshold before block height 961632, it will enter the mandatory activation window (block heights 961632-963647). During this period, nodes running BIP-110 will reject non-compliant blocks, forcibly increasing the adoption rate to 100%, ultimately causing BIP-110 to be mandatorily activated at block height 965664.
Based on the current Bitcoin block production speed, BIP-110 will enter its mandatory activation window in early August. This means that although BIP-110 is a soft fork proposal, a chain fork will occur at that time (the minority chain supporting BIP-110 and the main chain not supporting it).
BIP-110 Controversy Continues
According to Bitcoin's "longest chain rule," only when the actual hash rate of miners supporting BIP-100 constitutes a majority (>50%) will they become the longest chain, unifying the entire network under the new rules, i.e., the soft fork succeeds. Therefore, although BIP-110's mandatory activation is a foregone conclusion, whether it ultimately persists still depends on consensus. Otherwise, BIP-110 will end up like the vast majority of Bitcoin soft forks in history: dying out naturally.
Supporters: BIP-110 is not a change, but a rejection of change
The main representatives of the BIP-110 supporters are Luke Dashjr and his mining pool Ocean. Luke Dashjr was an early radical figure in the Bitcoin developer community opposing BRC-20 and inscriptions, and he also provided draft suggestions for the BIP-110 proposal.
Luke Dashjr is seen as a representative of Bitcoin fundamentalism, unwilling to see Bitcoin block space used for any purpose other than Bitcoin transfers. The BIP-110 proposal views inscriptions that emerged in 2022 as a kind of "Bitcoin attack" because allowing arbitrary data to be embedded in Bitcoin transactions creates a huge and unnecessary burden for nodes. These "spam data" also occupy a large amount of block space, forcing monetary transactions to increase their bidding threshold to be included in a block, crowding out Bitcoin's monetary use.
Therefore, Luke Dashjr posted on X platform that BIP-110 is not a change, but a rejection of change. When facing BIP-110 opponents, he fully employed sophistry, on one hand claiming BIP-110 has no hostility and does not force anyone to accept it, and on the other hand claiming that those who oppose BIP-110 are the real Bitcoin attackers.
Furthermore, although the current miner voting rate in favor of BIP-110 is very low (<1%), Luke Dashjr remains optimistic that the direct opposition miner voting rate is also almost 0%, implying that miners are not making decisions, and they will follow when BIP-110 activates.
In reality, as of now, the only mining pool publicly supporting BIP-110 is Luke Dashjr's own Ocean. F2Pool co-founder Wang Chun publicly stated as early as February that he would absolutely not support BIP-110. Luke Dashjr confidently replied below his post, "Then you will mine invalid blocks and lose all rewards."
According to miningradar data, F2Pool is the third largest Bitcoin mining pool, with a hash rate share of 13.6%; while Ocean's current hash rate is only 24.6 EH/s, accounting for 2.6% of the network's total hash rate.
Bitcoin Mining Pool Rankings
If Ocean ends up being the only supporting pool on the fork, they would only produce 3-5 blocks per day. Such work efficiency and block production speed cannot become the "longest chain" on the Bitcoin network.
Opponents: BIP-110 Doesn't Solve the Problem and Creates More New Problems
The opposition to the BIP-110 proposal is not only focused on whether it will succeed after activation but also criticizes it for not solving the "spam transaction" problem on the Bitcoin network while creating many potential new problems. In short, the BIP-110 opposition still strongly opposes it out of concern for various unintended consequences, not out of any attachment to Ordinals or inscriptions. Key opponents include cryptography pioneer Adam Back, Bitcoin Core developer Jameson Lopp, and Strategy founder Michael Saylor.
First, opponents argue that BIP-110 cannot completely solve the "spam transaction" problem facing the Bitcoin network; the author of the BIP-110 proposal also admits it can only provide temporary relief. Jameson Lopp believes that Bitcoin's block size limit and the block space auction market have already mitigated the spam transaction problem to some extent. However, Bitcoin has always been a target for various spam transaction attacks precisely because hardly anyone truly uses the Bitcoin network, keeping fees low and unable to create fee pressure sufficient to deter most spam.
Simultaneously, BIP-110 would stifle future Bitcoin innovation. The BIP-110 proposal also admits that its restrictions on Taproot hinder the implementation of advanced features or complex contracts like BitVM on the Bitcoin network. Although BIP-110 is described as a temporary one-year restriction, Jameson Lopp believes this is just Luke Dashjr's delaying tactic. If these restrictions severely constrain future Bitcoin upgrades, it could lead to a Bitcoin hard fork rather than a soft fork.
Adam Back focuses more on Bitcoin's censorship resistance and decentralized spirit. He argues that BIP-110 would subjectively censor transactions in blocks, fundamentally aiming to regulate others. This goes against the neutrality and censorship-resistant spirit that the Bitcoin network has upheld since its inception, representing a dangerous step towards centralization and control. Adam Back uses Bitcoin fundamentalism to negate the changes proposed by Bitcoin extremists, a case of "fighting fire with fire."
Michael Saylor summarizes BIP-110 as a "Bitcoin Iatrogenic Proposal," implying that the "treatment plan" of BIP-110 itself would harm Bitcoin rather than solve existing problems.
Furthermore, Michael Saylor believes that if BIP-110 is turned into consensus, some valid paid transactions would also become invalid. Setting such a precedent for censorship is the real danger.
Another major concern for opponents is that the activation of BIP-110 could split the Bitcoin chain ecosystem. There would then be two competing chains vying for the status of "real Bitcoin." In this scenario, due to the uncertainty of the fork outcome, there might be a risk of Bitcoin double-spending. Even without double-spending, if BIP-110 eventually evolves into a new chain, it would fragment Bitcoin's developer resources, hash power, and monetary consensus.
Opponents believe BIP-110 is trying to use technical means to solve a cultural problem, ultimately generating more unpredictable issues.
Despite these concerns, opponents are confident about BIP-110's failure. Jameson Lopp placed a bet against BIP-110 as early as February, with a minimum wager of 1 BTC, and to this day, no BIP-110 supporter has publicly accepted the bet.
Jameson Lopp's Bet Invitation to BIP-110 Supporters
On the prediction market Predyx, the probability that "BIP-110 will activate and be enforced on Bitcoin between September 1-7, 2026" is 10%. The "Yes" settlement condition requires the BIP-110 chain to become the "Bitcoin longest chain" accepted by the majority of nodes.
What Will Happen After BIP-110 Activates?
We can now consider some hypothetical scenarios for what will happen when BIP-110 is ultimately mandatorily activated at block height 965664 (late August to early September).
The first scenario, as described above, is that after reaching the activation height, BIP-110 nodes reject main chain blocks, but there aren't enough miners to produce new blocks compliant with BIP-110 rules. BIP-110 block production would be extremely slow, eventually stopping and ceasing to "grow."
The second scenario is that a certain proportion of miners support BIP-110. BIP-110 supporters believe they have an "asymmetric advantage" because BIP-110 rules are stricter. Therefore, although BIP-110 nodes will reject blocks containing violating data (inscriptions, etc.), non-BIP-110 nodes (mainstream Core nodes) will consider blocks produced by BIP-110 nodes as valid.
Furthermore, currently, inscription transactions account for only about 5% of Bitcoin block space, with over 95% still being traditional Bitcoin transfers. BIP-110 nodes can still receive a large number of mainstream blocks. Therefore, Luke Dashjr believes BIP-110 will ultimately become the "longest chain" and unify the network.
Bitcoin Block Space Usage by Transaction Type
The third scenario is that a certain proportion of miners support BIP-110, but their hash power never surpasses that of the existing majority chain. Typically, miners are highly rational because their machines start consuming electricity the moment they are turned on. In the competition between two chains, miners weigh the pros and cons. Miners on the BIP-110 chain might more easily abandon sunk costs (mining rewards on the minority chain) to join the majority chain because the minority chain not only lags in length but also has accumulated fewer Bitcoin rewards. This would eventually become the first scenario.
Then, assuming Luke Dashjr has extremely strong influence and miners remain irrational, persisting in mining on the BIP-110 chain, what would happen? This chain would continue to operate independently, but block times might be very slow, with miners essentially working for free, consuming energy meaninglessly. The most plausible outcome in this situation is that the BIP-110 chain permanently forks into an independent chain under the supporters, "manually" adjusts the block difficulty, and launches a new network token.
However, Luke Dashjr has repeatedly emphasized his refusal to hard fork BIP-110, believing it's not yet time to use hard fork methods. But public opinion can be a double-edged sword; by then, Luke Dashjr might also be forced by popular will, with the arrow already on the bowstring and having to be released.
Therefore, while the minority chain run by BIP-110 supporters can technically continue operating, it is also highly unlikely to thrive because that depends on economic and ecosystem factors, including support from wallets, exchanges, users, etc. There are many such examples on the Bitcoin network, with most ending in failure. Even when successful, the ceiling is at best seen in independent coins like BCH or BSV.
