The Bitcoin network is approaching a critical governance deadline, sitting less than 10,000 blocks away from the potential activation window for BIP-110. The proposed user-activated soft fork attempts to restrict non-monetary data from being stored in transactions to mitigate network spam, specifically targeting protocols like Ordinals and inscriptions. If triggered, the mechanism would enforce a strict default OP_RETURN limit across the blockchain.
Current node support for the initiative remains in the single digits. Despite the narrowing timeframe, the broader mining and development community has rejected the upgrade, citing the dangers of bypassing traditional miner consensus.
On June 8, Blockstream CEO Adam Back publicly dismissed the proposal. He labeled the initiative technically flawed and a “stupid idea.” Back cautioned that forcing the initiative through without miner consensus would trigger a minority chain split rather than a unified global network update.
The conflict stems from an ongoing ideological battle over how Bitcoin should handle inscriptions and non-financial data. Proponents of BIP-110 want to cleanly enforce a boundary on what data can be stored on-chain to preserve block space for financial settlements. Prominent network veterans argue the containment mechanism is structurally unfeasible and lacks the necessary infrastructure backing.
MicroStrategy’s Michael Saylor flagged the initiative as a direct threat to the protocol, calling it “Bitcoin’s biggest self-inflicted risk at present.” The severe lack of node adoption indicates the broader community backlash is actively suppressing the small group of proponents pushing for activation.
How BIP-110 Compares to the 2017 SegWit Upgrade
The current standoff over BIP-110 mirrors previous governance disputes but lacks the foundational support seen during the 2017 SegWit upgrade. While SegWit also utilized a user-activated soft fork model and faced activation friction, that initiative had already secured genuine technical consensus across core developers, miners, and node operators prior to implementation.
BIP-110 completely lacks backing from these critical infrastructure providers. If the proponents push forward with activation at the upcoming block threshold, the network will likely fracture into two distinct chains, leaving the BIP-110 supporters isolated on a protocol that the vast majority of the industry ignores.