Bitcoin is staring down its first real governance fight in years. A proposal called BIP 110 wants to temporarily ban most non-financial data from the blockchain, and it has split the community right down the middle — with Michael Saylor and Adam Back on one side, a group of self-described purists on the other, and a hard deadline hitting in early August. The catch? Almost no miners are backing it.
By Sarah Park | July 12, 2026
The Hook: A Fight Over What Bitcoin Is For
Here is the simplest way to understand what is happening. Imagine a highway that was built to transport goods between cities. Over time, people started using it for everything — billboard trucks rolling ads, mobile libraries, even art galleries on wheels. The highway still works fine, but some drivers think all this extra traffic is ruining the point of the road.
That highway is the Bitcoin blockchain. The “goods” are financial transactions. The “billboard trucks” are things like Ordinals, inscriptions, and token metadata — digital images, text, and token records that people embed inside Bitcoin transactions. None of these were the original purpose of the network, but all of them pay fees and follow the rules.
BIP 110, formally called the Reduced Data Temporary Soft Fork, would change those rules for one year. It would cap the size of data that can be attached to a transaction, block most arbitrary data chunks above 256 bytes, and restrict certain script formats that are mainly used for storage. Supporters say this would refocus Bitcoin on being money and reduce the burden on node operators who store the entire blockchain.
The proposal uses a mechanism called a user-activated soft fork, which means nodes enforce the rule regardless of what miners think. It was designed with a 55 percent miner-signaling threshold — already far lower than the traditional 95 percent required for most Bitcoin upgrades. The current signaling period runs from block 957,600 to 959,615, with a voluntary lock-in deadline at block 961,542 in the following period, expected in early August.
On-Chain Evidence: Miners Are Staying Away
If BIP 110 were a political campaign, it would be polling at zero. According to the official BIP 110 signaling monitor, miner support has never risen above 1 percent in any signaling period and currently sits at exactly zero. No major mining pool has backed it.
Among full nodes — the thousands of computers that store and relay the blockchain — adoption is stuck in the low single digits. The only meaningful support comes from Bitcoin Knots, an alternative implementation to the dominant Bitcoin Core software. In other words, the network’s two most important constituencies, miners and node operators, have collectively shrugged.
That matters because Bitcoin has no CEO, no board of directors, and no central authority. Changes only happen when enough independent operators voluntarily adopt them. If a small percentage of nodes starts rejecting blocks that do not follow BIP 110 rules, the most likely outcome is a minority chain split — a separate version of Bitcoin that only a few people use. It would not change Bitcoin for everyone else.
The Core Conflict: Saylor vs. The Purists
The debate turned electric on Saturday when Michael Saylor, founder of Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) and one of Bitcoin’s largest corporate holders, came out swinging. “There are 110 things more dangerous to Bitcoin than spam,” he posted, playing on the proposal’s name. His argument: BIP 110 turns a disagreement about spam into a consensus rule change that would invalidate currently valid, fee-paying transactions. The precedent, he warned, is the real danger.
Adam Back, the Blockstream co-founder whose hashcash invention is cited in the original Bitcoin white paper, went further. In a detailed thread addressed to the proposal’s backers, he said: “Bitcoin respectfully says no to what you want.” His message was blunt — if you disagree with how Bitcoin works, your option is to fork off and start your own chain, but “bitcoin won’t be joining it.”
On the other side, BIP 110 supporters argue that the blockchain has been bloated with non-financial data since an October 2025 policy change made it easier to embed large files. Blocks are heavier, nodes are more expensive to run, and the network is drifting from its purpose as sound digital money toward being a decentralized database. They have a point — the data burden is real, and reasonable operators can disagree about how much non-financial traffic Bitcoin should carry.
But there is a difference between a policy preference and a consensus change. Saylor and Back are not arguing that spam is good. They are arguing that censoring valid transactions through a hard fork sets a worse precedent than the spam itself. Once you establish that a majority of nodes can vote on which fee-paying transactions are “acceptable,” you have changed the nature of the network.
Market Implications: Why This Matters for Regular Investors
Bitcoin is currently trading around 64,090 USD, down significantly from its peak above 120,000 USD last year. Ethereum sits at 1,820 USD, Solana at 77.55 USD, and the broader market is in a cautious mood. Fidelity’s director of global macro, Jurrien Timmer, noted this week that Bitcoin is approaching a long-tracked support line near 58,000 USD — a level that has caught every major bottom since 2015.
Against that backdrop, a governance dispute is the last thing nervous investors want to see. But here is the good news: the reason this fight is playing out so publicly is precisely because Bitcoin’s system works. Unlike a company where a CEO can unilaterally change the rules, or a central bank that can print money behind closed doors, Bitcoin requires thousands of independent operators to agree. The fact that BIP 110 has essentially zero miner support despite weeks of heated debate is not a sign of dysfunction. It is a sign that Bitcoin’s decentralized consensus is functioning exactly as designed.
For everyday investors, the practical takeaway is this: a minority chain split would not affect your Bitcoin holdings. If you hold BTC on the main chain, you would not lose anything. Some exchanges might credit holders with the minority-chain coins as well, similar to what happened during the Bitcoin Cash split in 2017, but those coins would trade at a steep discount. The main chain would continue operating as before.
The Verdict: Bitcoin Changes Only When It Wants To
The BIP 110 deadline will arrive in early August regardless of support levels. Nodes running the software will begin rejecting blocks that do not signal compliance, with activation projected near September. But with miner backing at zero and node adoption in the low single digits, the most likely outcome is a tiny minority chain that most of the market will simply ignore.
The bigger story is what this episode reveals about Bitcoin in 2026. After a brutal quarter — three consecutive months of losses, the longest streak since the 2022 bear market — the network is being tested not just by price declines but by internal pressure. Should Bitcoin remain purely digital money, or should it accommodate the broader uses that people are willing to pay for?
That question will not be settled by BIP 110. It will be settled the way every Bitcoin question gets settled: slowly, through thousands of independent decisions made by node operators, miners, developers, and users around the world. The process is messy, frustrating, and occasionally alarming. But as this episode demonstrates, it is also remarkably effective at filtering out changes that the network does not want.
Bitcoin, it turns out, is exactly as stubborn as its most vocal advocates claim. And in a market full of uncertainty, that stubbornness may be the most valuable feature of all.
Disclaimer
The cryptocurrency market remains highly volatile. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.
55% signaling threshold and miners still arent backing it. kinda tells you everything about who actually wants this
mempool_dust_ miners dont run nodes the way people think. UASF forced activation without hashpower before. not precedent you want to ignore
Saylor and Adam Back on the same side of a Bitcoin governance fight is genuinely unexpected. figured those two would disagree on almost everything
Grzegorz hit the nail on the head. Saylor writing a whole book about Bitcoin as open property rights and then backing content restrictions is the kind of irony that writes itself.
saylor backing a censored bitcoin chain is wild. dude literally wrote a whole book about it being property rights and now wants to restrict what people put on chain
block_size_skeptic saylor backing restricted block space is genuinely ironic. the man owns 500K BTC and now wants to tell you what you can put on chain
256 byte cap is insane. youd kill BRC-20 and most inscription use cases overnight. this isnt governance its a purge
The irony of self-described purists fighting against actual miners having a say. Since when is 1 hash 1 vote controversial?
adam back weighing in on BIP 110 feels like it matters more than people think. hashcash inventor saying the chain needs guardrails is not nothing
nonce_grind_ adam back inventing hashcash and then saying the chain needs guardrails is a bigger signal than any miner signaling
Greta Lindqvist miners not signaling doesnt mean they dont want it. means the pools havent decided yet. last minute signaling happens every fork cycle
Soren D. last minute signaling happens every cycle except this time there is no economic incentive for miners. BRC-20 fees fund their operations and BIP 110 kills that revenue stream
Greta Lindqvist the purists arent fighting miners having a say, they are fighting saylor and back using their clout to push it through without miner consensus. those are different things
calling it now, this drags past August with no resolution and everyone forgets about it by September
Niamh is probably right. BIP 110 needs 55% signaling, has zero miner backing, and the August deadline is arbitrary. This is going to linger well past September like BIP 119 did.
Chloe Martin zero miner backing and an august deadline. this dies quietly or lingers like BIP 119 did
256 byte cap would kill BRC-20 overnight and nobody is talking about the cascading effect on miners who depend on inscription fees. this isnt governance its economic self-harm
purge_watch_ the cascading effect on inscription miners is the real story here. killing BRC-20 fees overnight tankes miner revenue and nobody talks about that
purge_watch_ killing BRC-20 fees overnight would tank miner revenue at the worst time. nobody connecting those dots
256-byte cap would be the biggest inscribed data wipe in Bitcoin history. BRC-20, Ordinals JPEGs, even text inscriptions — gone overnight. No wonder miners aren’t signaling support.
saylor backing restricted block space while holding 500K BTC is the most obvious conflict of interest in bitcoin governance history
saylor backing a 256 byte cap while holding 500K BTC is peak special interest. just say you hate ordinals and go
Mikael S. 500K BTC and now he wants to decide what goes on chain. the irony of writing a book on open property rights
55% threshold with zero current miner backing and an august deadline. this is performance art not governance. BIP 119 had more momentum and still died quietly
zero miner signaling and an august deadline. this is forksplaining at its finest. remind anyone of 2x?