2.38 % Of Nodes Back BIP 110 In Growing Movement

In a network where every line of code can become a manifesto, the slightest technical signal takes on the appearance of a political declaration. BIP 110, supported by a growing fraction of Bitcoin nodes, illustrates this internal tension. Behind this seemingly minor proposal lies a clear intention: to tighten control over data insertion into the blockchain and defend a stricter vision of the protocol.

Signaling of BIP-110 : a technical momentum is building

While Bitcoin Core has passed an independent audit without a scratch, 2.38% of Bitcoin nodes are currently signaling their support for BIP-110, that is 583 nodes out of a total of 24,481, according to data published by developer Luke Dashjr.

Although this percentage remains a minority, it is part of a steady progression. BIP-110 is a soft fork proposal aimed at restricting the size and scope of arbitrary data embedded in Bitcoin transactions. Its goal is to limit abuses that could harm the performance and decentralization of the network.

Here are the main technical features of this proposal :

• A strict limit of OP_RETURN data to 83 bytes ;
• Reduction of the maximum size of transaction outputs to 34 bytes ;
• An application period set to one year, with possible reevaluation after expiration ;
• Compatibility ensured via a soft fork, without consensus break ;
• Signaling supported by Bitcoin Knots, an alternative to Bitcoin Core ;
• A mechanism usable within the framework of a Node-Activated Soft Fork (NASF).

This increase in signaling across the network reflects a coordinated and deliberate movement. The soft fork choice allows nodes to express their disagreement without causing a break, while indirectly influencing the technical and political debate around the directions of Bitcoin Core.

Ideological fractures around data on the blockchain

The rise of BIP-110 cannot be understood without referring back to the recent decision by the maintainers of Bitcoin Core. Version 30 of the main client removed the limit imposed on OP_RETURN data, paving the way for potentially heavier resource uses.

For some, this removal represents a drift. Luke Dashjr, initiator of BIP-110, openly criticizes this decision and defends a more minimalist vision of the Bitcoin network : “storing useless data harms decentralization and increases costs for node operators”. This approach resonates with supporters of a strictly monetary Bitcoin, keen to preserve the protocol’s lightness.

On the opposite side, several community contributors believe this concern is exaggerated. Jameson Lopp, a well-known figure in the ecosystem, claims that “limiting OP_RETURN does not solve spam problems” and that “spammers can still use other means to insert data”.

He also questions the effectiveness of filters such as those introduced in Bitcoin Knots, considering they do not constitute a structural response to the problem. This disagreement highlights an old tension : should the freedom of blockchain use be restricted to preserve its scalability, or should experimentation be encouraged at the risk of network saturation ?

While BIP-110 continues to gain ground, another warning signal shakes the network : more than 2,500 nodes would be vulnerable to a critical bug. Between governance tensions and technical fragilities, the blockchain is going through turbulence where every line of code becomes a strategic issue.