Original | Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina)
Author | Golem (@web3_golem)
As the mandatory activation window in August approaches, discussions around the BIP-110 proposal have recently heated up again.
BIP-110 was proposed by Dathon Ohm in December 2025 and is supported by Bitcoin Core developer Luke Dashjr. This proposal aims to limit arbitrary/non-monetary data in Bitcoin transactions over the next year, primarily targeting large data storage like Ordinals and Bitcoin NFTs, in hopes of reducing "spam transactions" in the network and keeping Bitcoin focused on its monetary function.
This proposal has been controversial since its introduction, but data shows that BIP-110 currently lacks mainstream support from miners and nodes. The activation threshold for BIP-110 is 55%. According to statistics, current miner support is less than 1%. Out of a total of 102,674 nodes in the network, only 15,035 nodes are willing to enforce BIP-110, a ratio of 14.64%.
BIP-110 Miner and Node Support Rate
Typically, a proposal with such low support cannot pass on the Bitcoin network. However, the audacious aspect of BIP-110 is that even without achieving consensus, nodes supporting BIP-110 will enforce it. If BIP-110 does not reach the 55% activation threshold before block height 961,632, it will enter a mandatory activation window (block heights 961,632-963,647). During this period, nodes running BIP-110 will reject non-compliant blocks, forcibly pushing the acceptance rate to 100%, enabling BIP-110 to be ultimately activated and enforced at block height 965,664.
At the current Bitcoin network block production rate, BIP-110 will enter its mandatory activation window in early August. This means that although BIP-110 is a soft fork proposal, the Bitcoin network will still experience a chain split (a minority chain supporting BIP-110 and the main chain not supporting it) at that time.
BIP-110 Continuous Controversy
According to Bitcoin's "longest chain rule," a soft fork only succeeds—meaning the entire network unifies under the new rules—when miners supporting BIP-110 (or, more accurately, the proposed changes) actually possess a majority (>50%) of the hash rate, allowing their chain to become the longest chain. Therefore, although the forced activation of BIP-110 seems inevitable, its ultimate persistence still depends on consensus. Otherwise, BIP-110 will likely meet the same fate as the vast majority of Bitcoin soft forks in history: dying out naturally.
Supporters: BIP-110 is not a change, but a negation of a change
The main representatives of the BIP-110 supporters are Luke Dashjr and his mining pool, Ocean. Luke Dashjr has long been a vocal opponent of BRC-20 and inscriptions within the Bitcoin developer community and provided initial suggestions for the BIP-110 proposal.
Luke Dashjr is considered a representative figure of Bitcoin maximalism or fundamentalism. They are unwilling to see Bitcoin block space used for any purpose other than Bitcoin transfers. In the BIP-110 proposal, inscriptions that emerged in 2022 are viewed as a type of "Bitcoin attack." The rationale is that allowing arbitrary data to be embedded in Bitcoin transactions creates a massive and unnecessary burden for nodes. Furthermore, this "junk data" occupies a significant amount of block space, forcing monetary transactions to raise their fee bids to be included in a block, thereby crowding out Bitcoin's monetary use.
Therefore, Luke Dashjr posted on platform X, stating that BIP-110 is not a change, but a negation of a change. When facing opposition to BIP-110, he also employs sophistry, claiming on one hand that BIP-110 has no hostility and does not force anyone to accept it, and on the other hand, asserting that those who oppose BIP-110 are the true attackers of Bitcoin.
Moreover, although the current voting rate of miners approving BIP-110 is very low (<1%), Luke Dashjr remains optimistic, pointing out that the direct opposition voting rate among miners is also nearly 0%. The implication is that miners are not making a decision; once BIP-110 activates, they will naturally follow.
Looking at 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 back in February that they would absolutely not support BIP-110. Luke Dashjr confidently replied under that post, "Then you will mine invalid blocks and lose all your rewards."
According to miningradar data, F2Pool is the third-largest Bitcoin mining pool globally, with a hash rate share of 13.6%. Meanwhile, 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 ultimately becomes the only pool supporting the fork, they would only produce 3-5 blocks per day. Such efficiency and block production speed would be insufficient to become the "longest chain" on the Bitcoin network.
Opponents: BIP-110 Doesn't Solve the Problem and Creates More New Issues
Opponents of the BIP-110 proposal not only focus on whether BIP-110 will be successful after activation but also criticize it for failing to solve the "spam transaction" problem on the Bitcoin network while simultaneously creating many potential new issues. In short, BIP-110 opponents are strongly opposing it out of concern for various unintended consequences, not out of any attachment to Ordinals or inscriptions. Key figures among the opponents include cypherpunk pioneer Adam Back, Bitcoin Core developer Jameson Lopp, and MicroStrategy founder Michael Saylor.
Firstly, opponents argue that BIP-110 cannot completely solve the "spam transaction" issue 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 fee market for block space have already mitigated the spam transaction problem to some extent. However, Bitcoin remains a target for various spam transaction attacks primarily because very few people actually use the Bitcoin network regularly, keeping transaction fees consistently low. This prevents the formation of sufficient fee pressure to deter most spam transactions.
Furthermore, BIP-110 could stifle future innovation on Bitcoin. The BIP-110 proposal itself acknowledges that restrictions on Taproot would hinder the implementation of advanced functionalities or complex contracts like BitVM on the Bitcoin network. Although BIP-110 is described as a one-year temporary restriction, Jameson Lopp believes this is merely a delaying tactic by Luke Dashjr. If these restrictions severely constrain future Bitcoin upgrades, it could ultimately 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 within blocks, fundamentally aiming to regulate others. This goes against the neutrality and censorship-resistant spirit Bitcoin has upheld since its inception, representing a dangerous step towards centralization and control. Adam Back uses Bitcoin's original principles to negate the changes proposed by Bitcoin extremists, essentially "using magic to defeat magic."
Michael Saylor summarizes BIP-110 as a "Bitcoin Iatrogenic Proposal," implying that the "treatment" (BIP-110) itself would harm Bitcoin rather than solve existing problems.
Michael Saylor also believes that if BIP-110 were to become consensus, some valid paid transactions would become invalid, and setting this precedent for censorship is the true danger.
Opponents have another major concern: the serious consequence that activating BIP-110 could split the Bitcoin chain ecosystem. Two competing chains would emerge, vying for the status of the "real Bitcoin." In such a scenario, uncertainty about the fork's outcome could create a risk of Bitcoin double-spending. Even without causing double-spending, if BIP-110 ultimately evolves into a new chain, it would split Bitcoin's developer resources, hash rate resources, and monetary consensus.
Opponents believe BIP-110 is attempting to use a technical solution to address a cultural problem, potentially generating more unpredictable issues in the process.
Despite these concerns, opponents are confident about BIP-110's failure. Jameson Lopp made a bet against BIP-110 back in February, with a minimum wager of 1 BTC. So far, no BIP-110 supporter has publicly accepted the bet.
Jameson Lopp's Wager Invitation to BIP-110 Supporters
On the prediction market Predyx, the probability for "BIP-110 will activate and be enforced on Bitcoin between September 1-7, 2026" is 10%. The settlement condition for "Yes" is that the BIP-110 chain must become the "Bitcoin longest chain" and be accepted by most nodes.
What Happens After BIP-110 Activates?
We can now consider several hypothetical scenarios for what might happen when BIP-110 is ultimately forcibly activated at block height 965,664 (late August to early September).
The first scenario is as described above. After reaching the activation height, BIP-110 nodes reject main chain blocks, but there aren't enough miners producing new blocks that comply with BIP-110 rules. The BIP-110 chain's block production speed would be extremely slow, eventually stopping altogether and ceasing to "grow."
The second scenario assumes a certain proportion of miners support BIP-110. BIP-110 supporters believe they possess an "asymmetric advantage" because BIP-110 rules are stricter. Therefore, while BIP-110 nodes will reject blocks containing违规数据 (inscriptions, etc.), non-BIP-110 nodes (mainstream Core nodes) will consider blocks produced by BIP-110 nodes as valid.
Moreover, currently, inscription transactions only account for about 5% of Bitcoin block space usage, with over 95% being traditional Bitcoin transfer transactions. BIP-110 nodes would still receive a large number of mainstream blocks. This is why 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 involves a certain proportion of miners supporting BIP-110, but their hash rate never surpasses that of the existing majority chain. Typically, miners are highly rational because their machines incur electricity costs as soon as they are turned on. In a competition between two chains, miners weigh the pros and cons. Miners on the BIP-110 chain might find it easier to abandon sunk costs (mining rewards on the minority chain) and join the majority chain, as the minority chain not only lags in length but also accumulates fewer Bitcoin rewards than the majority chain. This would ultimately lead to the first scenario.
Now, assuming Luke Dashjr has immense influence and miners act irrationally, persisting in mining on the BIP-110 chain, what would happen? This chain would continue to operate independently, but block times could be very slow. Miners would essentially be mining for the sake of ideology, consuming energy meaninglessly. The most plausible outcome in this situation is that the BIP-110 chain, driven by its supporters, permanently forks into an independent chain, "manually" adjusts its difficulty, and launches a new network token.
However, Luke Dashjr has repeatedly emphasized his refusal to hard fork for BIP-110, believing it's not yet time to use that method. Public sentiment can be a double-edged sword. At that point, even Luke Dashjr might be carried away by the will of the crowd, finding the arrow already on the bowstring and having to release it.
Therefore, the minority chain run by BIP-110 supporters can technically continue to operate, but it will likely struggle to thrive, as that depends on economic and ecosystem factors, including support from wallets, exchanges, users, etc. There are many such examples on the Bitcoin network; most ultimately fail. Even those that succeed rarely reach heights beyond independent coins like BCH or BSV.
