Bitcoin: Is BIP-110 a Step Forward or a Risk for the Network?

As debates around the use of the Bitcoin blockchain multiply, a new technical proposal reignites tensions within the community. Named BIP-110, this project aims to temporarily limit the inscription of non-financial data on the network to reduce what its promoters consider spam, notably the Ordinals, BRC-20, and Runes protocols. While some see it as a necessary evolution to preserve Bitcoin’s efficiency, others believe it challenges the protocol’s neutrality and its founding principles. Does BIP-110 represent an advance for Bitcoin or a risk for the network’s future?

BIP-110: A Controversial Proposal to Limit Non-Financial Data on Bitcoin

BIP-110 (Reduced Data Temporary Softfork or RDTS) is a fork proposal presented as an improvement to Bitcoin aiming to restrict, for about one year, the inscription of non-financial data on the blockchain. Led by the pseudonymous developer Dathon Ohm and supported by Luke Dashjr, co-founder and technical director of the Ocean mining pool. The project, according to them, mainly targets Ordinals inscriptions, BRC-20 tokens, the Runes protocol, and more broadly, arbitrary data that its defenders consider spam.

According to its presentation, BIP-110 will introduce seven new consensus rules aimed at limiting the space used by these inscriptions. It would notably reduce the size of new outputs to 34 bytes, except for OP_RETURN outputs capped at 83 bytes, while limiting data insertions to 256 bytes. The proposal also imposes several restrictions on certain Taproot features, including annexes, control blocks, and some opcodes.

To ensure compatibility with funds already present on the network, UTXOs created before the activation of BIP-110 would remain permanently exempt from these new rules. The restrictions would therefore only apply to new transactions created after the soft fork’s enactment.

A Soft Fork That Breaks With Bitcoin’s Traditional Activation Methods

Unlike previous major Bitcoin upgrades, BIP-110 relies on a User-Activated Soft Fork (UASF), a mechanism that transfers activation power from miners to node operators. Recall, a soft fork is a backward-compatible update that makes protocol rules more restrictive without preventing older software versions from continuing to operate.

In a classic deployment, miners signal support by changing an information bit in the blocks they produce until reaching the threshold required to activate the update. But for BIP-110’s approach, nodes can enforce its rules regardless of miner agreement, with a miner signaling threshold set at 55% over a 2,016-block period instead of the traditional 95%.

A Miner Verdict That Leaves No Doubt

Even at this significantly lower level, no support is provided. Since signaling began in spring 2026, miner support has never exceeded about 1% in any period according to the BIP-110 monitor data and stands around 0.91% at the time of writing. No large mining pools like Foundry USA or AntPool have joined the initiative, while F2Pool has openly opposed it. Nearly all blocks signaling BIP-110 come from Ocean, the pool co-founded by Luke Dashjr, as well as a few small independent operators.

The situation is similar among users. Bitcoin Core, the implementation used by the vast majority of network nodes, will not integrate BIP-110. Only operators using Bitcoin Knots and who have voluntarily configured their software to apply these new rules would be likely to participate in its activation.

The deadline is approaching. The current signaling period spans block 957,600 to block 959,615, and a voluntary lock-in deadline is set for block 961,542 during the next period, scheduled for early August. Nodes running BIP-110 software could therefore start rejecting any block not signaling support, with activation planned around September. In practice, a rule enforced by a few nodes and almost no miners would change nothing for Bitcoin users but would result in a minority chain split.

For ordinary users, consequences should remain limited as long as BIP-110 does not gain significant adoption. However, if this proposal were to gather a substantial portion of the network’s computing power—for example, 20% or more of the hashrate—it could cause a temporary hashrate drop on the main chain, an increase in orphan blocks, and disruptions for wallets and exchanges before opening debate on which chain can legitimately claim the Bitcoin name.

Beyond Inscriptions, Bitcoin’s Very Philosophy Is at Stake

Beyond its low technical support, BIP-110’s main obstacle lies in what it questions: Bitcoin’s founding principles. Since its creation in 2009, the protocol is based on a simple idea: to be a decentralized, neutral, censorship-resistant network where no one can decide which transactions are legitimate. As long as a transaction complies with consensus rules and fees are paid, Bitcoin makes no distinction about the nature of data it carries.

This is precisely where BIP-110 triggers strong opposition. By seeking to limit certain inscriptions such as Ordinals, BRC-20, or Runes, the proposal introduces a form of filtering usage of the blockchain. Such evolution would betray Bitcoin’s original spirit, which, for over fifteen years, has operated without a central authority capable of selecting acceptable transactions. Changing consensus rules to exclude some usages would set a precedent potentially opening the door to other forms of censorship, contrary to the philosophy that allowed Bitcoin to establish itself as an open and permissionless protocol.

This opposition is notably carried by two of the most influential figures in the industry. Michael Saylor, founder of Strategy, rejected BIP-110, claiming that “there are 110 things more dangerous to Bitcoin than spam.” According to him, the proposal is not limited to fighting abusive inscriptions: it “turns a spam dispute into a consensus change that would invalidate some valid and fee-paying transactions.” For Saylor, the real danger lies in the precedent such change would create.

The same view is shared by Adam Back, co-founder of Blockstream and inventor of the Hashcash system cited in the Bitcoin white paper. Addressing BIP-110 supporters, he reminded them that “Bitcoin politely says no to what you want,” believing the protocol is not meant to be changed to meet the expectations of a user group. According to him, those who want to apply new rules are free to create their own fork, but “Bitcoin will not join them,” reaffirming that the network’s fundamental rules cannot be imposed by a minority.

Thus, BIP-110 illustrates a new battle around Bitcoin’s future, between those who want to limit certain blockchain uses and those who defend the protocol’s neutrality. Despite its technical goals, the proposal struggles to obtain the necessary consensus among miners and users. Its activation could more likely cause a Bitcoin chain split than bring a true improvement.