What BIP-110 Would Have Done

BIP-110, formally titled the "Reduced Data Temporary Softfork," was a proposed one-year consensus-level restriction on non-payment data in Bitcoin transactions . Authored by an anonymous developer using the pseudonym Dathon Ohm and promoted through the Bitcoin Knots client, the proposal targeted Ordinals inscriptions, BRC-20 tokens, Runes, and oversized OP_RETURN payloads — uses that embed data into blocks primarily to leverage Bitcoin's immutability rather than to transfer value .

The core technical rules were:

• New transaction outputs capped at 34 bytes (with exceptions for OP_RETURN)
• OP_RETURN outputs limited to 83 bytes
• Data-push restrictions to prevent inscription-style data storage

The rules were designed to expire automatically after approximately 52,416 blocks (roughly one year) unless renewed by a later consensus change . Activation required 55% of mining hashrate to signal support — a significantly lower threshold than the approximately 95% that previous major Bitcoin upgrades had commanded .

Michael Saylor: 'The Cure Is More Dangerous Than the Condition'

Saylor, whose company Strategy Inc. (formerly MicroStrategy) is the world's largest publicly traded corporate Bitcoin holder, published a comprehensive opposition document titled "110 Reasons BIP 110 Is a Bad Idea" and called the proposal iatrogenic — a medical term meaning the cure is worse than the disease .

His core arguments included:

• Violation of Bitcoin neutrality: Saylor argued that changing consensus rules to restrict currently valid, fee-paying transactions would compromise Bitcoin's neutral, permissionless base layer . "Bitcoin does not need guardians of purity; it needs guardians of neutrality," he wrote .
• Dangerous precedent: Turning a content dispute about Ordinals and "spam" into a protocol-level change, he warned, sets a precedent far more damaging than the spam itself could ever be . "There are 110 things more dangerous to Bitcoin than spam," Saylor stated in a July 11 post on X .
• Consensus and network risk: The soft fork would render some blocks invalid to upgraded nodes, risking a network split and introducing new, poorly understood consensus risks .
• Market-based alternatives exist: Saylor argued that fees, relay policies, and mining policies — not consensus changes — are the appropriate tools for managing unwanted transactions .
• Lack of measurable evidence: He questioned whether BIP-110 provided measurable evidence of improving decentralization or the fee market .
• Slippery slope: Once the protocol is changed to restrict one class of transactions, it opens the door to restricting others .

Saylor also noted that BIP-110 was not rectifying any known critical bugs or consensus failures such as inflation, signature validation, or double-spending — instead, it tackled what he called a "contested externality" .

Adam Back: 'Robustly Rejected' and 'Technically Defective'

Adam Back, the cryptographer whose Hashcash proof-of-work system is cited in the Bitcoin whitepaper and who has long been a guardian of Bitcoin's cypherpunk ethos, was equally forceful in his opposition .

Back's key criticisms:

• Technically flawed: Back described BIP-110 as "technically defective" and said it "doesn't work" — lacking both technical consensus and ecosystem consensus . He compared it unfavorably to SegWit, which he noted had both forms of consensus .
• Cypherpunk ethos violation: He called the proposal a "quest to police other people," arguing that Bitcoin's decentralization means "you can't impose your views on others," and that permissionlessness is fundamental to Bitcoin's design .
• Minuscule support: As of July 18, 2026, Back noted that miner signaling was just 0.86% against the 55% lock-in threshold required for activation . He predicted the fork would stall within weeks of mandatory signaling around block 961,632 .
• Minority chain split risk: Back warned that forcing activation could produce a low-hashrate minority chain rather than a widely accepted upgrade, creating a persistent fork akin to Bitcoin Cash or Bitcoin SV .
• Bypassable restrictions: He argued that the restrictions are bypassable while the "innovation damage" is not — meaning the proposal would stifle legitimate development without effectively stopping determined spammers .
• Regulatory and reputation damage: Back warned that BIP-110 could invite regulatory pressure and damage Bitcoin's reputation as a neutral, censorship-resistant store of value .
• False Satoshi claims: He dismissed claims that Satoshi Nakamoto would have supported BIP-110 as baseless .

In a blunt assessment, Back said the proposal "is being ignored because it's a stupid idea" and that no conspiracy was needed to explain its lack of support .

Other Prominent Opponents

Saylor and Back were joined by other notable Bitcoin figures, including Jameson Lopp (Casa CTO) and Wang Chun (F2Pool co-founder), who similarly cited threats to neutrality, censorship risks, and the danger of chain splits .

Historical Context: The Ordinals Explosion

The debate traces back to the explosion of Ordinals inscriptions and BRC-20 tokens starting in early 2023. Proponents of BIP-110 argued that these non-financial uses clutter blocks with "spam" data, raise node-running costs, and distort miner incentives away from Bitcoin's purpose as a monetary network . Opponents — including Saylor and Back — countered that the proper response to unwanted activity is economic (fees, relay policies), not a change to the consensus rules .

Timeline and Current Status

• October 2025: Public discussion of BIP-110 began on the Bitcoin developer mailing list . The formal draft was presented shortly thereafter.
• January 2026: Early node support reported at 583 nodes .
• June 2026: Signaling began. Less than 1% of mining hashrate supported the proposal versus the 55% activation threshold . Back called it "technically defective" on June 8 .
• July 2026: Saylor published his "110 Reasons" essay on July 19 . Both Saylor and Back issued repeated public statements opposing the fork throughout the month .
• Current (July 2026): The proposal is approaching its activation window in early August with insufficient support. Back declared that Bitcoin has "robustly rejected" BIP-110 and that the main Bitcoin network is unlikely to adopt the changes . The proposal will automatically expire one year after its proposed activation if not adopted .

The Big Picture

The BIP-110 debate represents a defining moment in Bitcoin governance. Both Saylor and Back — despite their vastly different roles (corporate treasury executive and cypherpunk developer) — agreed on the fundamental principle: altering consensus rules to police transaction content is a graver threat to Bitcoin's long-term credibility than the transactions themselves. As Saylor put it, the question is "whether transactions that are valid and payable under existing rules should be blocked at the consensus level" . The network's answer, so far, has been no.

What BIP-110 Would Have Done

BIP-110, formally titled the "Reduced Data Temporary Softfork," was a proposed one-year consensus-level restriction on non-payment data in Bitcoin transactions . Authored by an anonymous developer using the pseudonym Dathon Ohm and promoted through the Bitcoin Knots client, the proposal targeted Ordinals inscriptions, BRC-20 tokens, Runes, and oversized OP_RETURN payloads — uses that embed data into blocks primarily to leverage Bitcoin's immutability rather than to transfer value .

The core technical rules were:

• New transaction outputs capped at 34 bytes (with exceptions for OP_RETURN)
• OP_RETURN outputs limited to 83 bytes
• Data-push restrictions to prevent inscription-style data storage

The rules were designed to expire automatically after approximately 52,416 blocks (roughly one year) unless renewed by a later consensus change . Activation required 55% of mining hashrate to signal support — a significantly lower threshold than the approximately 95% that previous major Bitcoin upgrades had commanded .

Michael Saylor: 'The Cure Is More Dangerous Than the Condition'

Saylor, whose company Strategy Inc. (formerly MicroStrategy) is the world's largest publicly traded corporate Bitcoin holder, published a comprehensive opposition document titled "110 Reasons BIP 110 Is a Bad Idea" and called the proposal iatrogenic — a medical term meaning the cure is worse than the disease .

His core arguments included:

• Violation of Bitcoin neutrality: Saylor argued that changing consensus rules to restrict currently valid, fee-paying transactions would compromise Bitcoin's neutral, permissionless base layer . "Bitcoin does not need guardians of purity; it needs guardians of neutrality," he wrote .
• Dangerous precedent: Turning a content dispute about Ordinals and "spam" into a protocol-level change, he warned, sets a precedent far more damaging than the spam itself could ever be . "There are 110 things more dangerous to Bitcoin than spam," Saylor stated in a July 11 post on X .
• Consensus and network risk: The soft fork would render some blocks invalid to upgraded nodes, risking a network split and introducing new, poorly understood consensus risks .
• Market-based alternatives exist: Saylor argued that fees, relay policies, and mining policies — not consensus changes — are the appropriate tools for managing unwanted transactions .
• Lack of measurable evidence: He questioned whether BIP-110 provided measurable evidence of improving decentralization or the fee market .
• Slippery slope: Once the protocol is changed to restrict one class of transactions, it opens the door to restricting others .

Saylor also noted that BIP-110 was not rectifying any known critical bugs or consensus failures such as inflation, signature validation, or double-spending — instead, it tackled what he called a "contested externality" .

Adam Back: 'Robustly Rejected' and 'Technically Defective'

Adam Back, the cryptographer whose Hashcash proof-of-work system is cited in the Bitcoin whitepaper and who has long been a guardian of Bitcoin's cypherpunk ethos, was equally forceful in his opposition .

Back's key criticisms:

• Technically flawed: Back described BIP-110 as "technically defective" and said it "doesn't work" — lacking both technical consensus and ecosystem consensus . He compared it unfavorably to SegWit, which he noted had both forms of consensus .
• Cypherpunk ethos violation: He called the proposal a "quest to police other people," arguing that Bitcoin's decentralization means "you can't impose your views on others," and that permissionlessness is fundamental to Bitcoin's design .
• Minuscule support: As of July 18, 2026, Back noted that miner signaling was just 0.86% against the 55% lock-in threshold required for activation . He predicted the fork would stall within weeks of mandatory signaling around block 961,632 .
• Minority chain split risk: Back warned that forcing activation could produce a low-hashrate minority chain rather than a widely accepted upgrade, creating a persistent fork akin to Bitcoin Cash or Bitcoin SV .
• Bypassable restrictions: He argued that the restrictions are bypassable while the "innovation damage" is not — meaning the proposal would stifle legitimate development without effectively stopping determined spammers .
• Regulatory and reputation damage: Back warned that BIP-110 could invite regulatory pressure and damage Bitcoin's reputation as a neutral, censorship-resistant store of value .
• False Satoshi claims: He dismissed claims that Satoshi Nakamoto would have supported BIP-110 as baseless .

In a blunt assessment, Back said the proposal "is being ignored because it's a stupid idea" and that no conspiracy was needed to explain its lack of support .

Other Prominent Opponents

Saylor and Back were joined by other notable Bitcoin figures, including Jameson Lopp (Casa CTO) and Wang Chun (F2Pool co-founder), who similarly cited threats to neutrality, censorship risks, and the danger of chain splits .

Historical Context: The Ordinals Explosion

The debate traces back to the explosion of Ordinals inscriptions and BRC-20 tokens starting in early 2023. Proponents of BIP-110 argued that these non-financial uses clutter blocks with "spam" data, raise node-running costs, and distort miner incentives away from Bitcoin's purpose as a monetary network . Opponents — including Saylor and Back — countered that the proper response to unwanted activity is economic (fees, relay policies), not a change to the consensus rules .

Timeline and Current Status

• October 2025: Public discussion of BIP-110 began on the Bitcoin developer mailing list . The formal draft was presented shortly thereafter.
• January 2026: Early node support reported at 583 nodes .
• June 2026: Signaling began. Less than 1% of mining hashrate supported the proposal versus the 55% activation threshold . Back called it "technically defective" on June 8 .
• July 2026: Saylor published his "110 Reasons" essay on July 19 . Both Saylor and Back issued repeated public statements opposing the fork throughout the month .
• Current (July 2026): The proposal is approaching its activation window in early August with insufficient support. Back declared that Bitcoin has "robustly rejected" BIP-110 and that the main Bitcoin network is unlikely to adopt the changes . The proposal will automatically expire one year after its proposed activation if not adopted .

The Big Picture

The BIP-110 debate represents a defining moment in Bitcoin governance. Both Saylor and Back — despite their vastly different roles (corporate treasury executive and cypherpunk developer) — agreed on the fundamental principle: altering consensus rules to police transaction content is a graver threat to Bitcoin's long-term credibility than the transactions themselves. As Saylor put it, the question is "whether transactions that are valid and payable under existing rules should be blocked at the consensus level" . The network's answer, so far, has been no.