A controversial proposal to purge non-financial data from the Bitcoin blockchain is heading toward a hard deadline in early August, and the miners who actually process transactions are refusing to touch it. Support for BIP-110 — formally called the Reduced Data Temporary Soft Fork — has never risen above 1% and currently sits at exactly zero, according to the proposal’s own signaling monitor. The deadlock reveals a fundamental disagreement about what Bitcoin’s block space is for, and it could split the network if a tiny minority of nodes decides to enforce rules the rest reject.
By Michael Nguyen | July 16, 2026
The Hook: A Fight Over Bitcoin’s Purpose
Bitcoin transactions can carry money — and they can also carry extra data. A feature called OP_RETURN acts like a small note field inside transactions, while other methods allow users to embed larger chunks of raw data within Bitcoin’s script or witness data. Projects like Ordinals, inscriptions, and various token schemes use these paths to put images, text, and metadata directly on the blockchain.
According to CoinDesk, BIP-110 would temporarily tighten those paths for one year. It would cap OP_RETURN at its old smaller size, block most arbitrary data chunks above 256 bytes, and restrict certain script formats used mainly for data storage. Supporters argue this keeps Bitcoin focused on its core purpose as a payment network and reduces the burden on node operators who store the full blockchain.
Critics see it differently. They argue that turning a policy debate into a binding consensus rule effectively tells users which transactions are “acceptable” on a network that is supposed to be neutral. If a transaction pays the required fee, they say, miners should include it — that is how Bitcoin has always worked.
On-Chain Evidence: Zero Miner Support
The numbers tell a stark story. BIP-110 does not follow the usual path of overwhelming miner approval. Instead, it uses a user-activated soft fork — a mechanism where nodes enforce a rule whether or not miners agree — set to a 55% miner-signaling threshold rather than the traditional 95%.
- Miner signaling: currently zero percent, having never risen above approximately 1% in any signaling period
- No major mining pool has publicly backed the proposal
- Node adoption sits in the low single digits, carried almost entirely by Bitcoin Knots, an alternative to the dominant Bitcoin Core software
- The signaling window runs from block 957,600 to block 959,615, with a voluntary lock-in deadline at block 961,542
In plain terms: the people who actually mine Bitcoin want nothing to do with this change. That matters because miners are the ones who process transactions and secure the network. A rule that no miner enforces is just a suggestion — and a small group of nodes enforcing it on their own risks creating a minority chain split.
The Core Conflict: Heavyweights Weigh In
Two of Bitcoin’s most influential figures publicly opposed BIP-110 on Saturday. Michael Saylor, founder of Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) and one of Bitcoin’s largest corporate holders, posted on social media: “There are 110 things more dangerous to Bitcoin than spam.” He argued the proposal “turns a spam dispute into a consensus change that would invalidate some currently valid, fee-paying transactions.” The precedent, he wrote, is the real danger — not the spam itself.
Adam Back, the Blockstream co-founder whose hashcash design is cited in the original Bitcoin white paper, made a similar argument at greater length. He told the proposal’s backers: “Bitcoin respectfully says no to what you want.” He added that if they remain unconvinced, their real recourse is to group together and fork away — but that “bitcoin won’t be joining it.”
For miners and staking operators, the implications are direct. If a small percentage of nodes begins rejecting blocks that do not signal support for BIP-110 after the deadline, those nodes will effectively split off from the main chain. Any miner who runs BIP-110 software would mine on the minority chain, earning coins that may have no market value. The economic incentive is strongly against participation.
Market Implications: What This Means for Investors
For everyday Bitcoin investors, the BIP-110 saga is mostly noise — but it is instructive noise. It demonstrates that Bitcoin’s resistance to change is not a bug but a feature. Thousands of independent operators — miners, node runners, developers — each have to voluntarily opt in to any change. That makes Bitcoin slow to adapt, but it also makes it extraordinarily hard to capture or co-opt.
The underlying spam concern is real. According to CoinDesk’s reporting, blocks have carried significantly more non-financial data since a policy change last October. Reasonable people can see that as a drift from Bitcoin’s role as money toward a general-purpose database. But the BIP-110 approach — forcing compliance through a rule change — is proving to be a solution without enough support.
Bitcoin is currently trading at approximately $64,400, down roughly 1% over 24 hours, according to data from CoinGecko. The price has been steady despite the ongoing debate, suggesting the market views BIP-110 as a non-event for Bitcoin’s value proposition.
The Verdict: Bitcoin’s Governance Is Working as Designed
The most likely outcome is that BIP-110 fails to gain enough support and quietly expires after the signaling period ends. Nodes running BIP-110 software would begin rejecting non-compliant blocks, projected near September, but with near-zero miner support, they would effectively fork onto a minority chain that almost no one uses. The main Bitcoin network would continue operating exactly as it does today.
For miners, the lesson is clear: the fee market will sort out what belongs on the blockchain. If data-embedding transactions are willing to pay competitive fees, miners will include them. If fees rise too high for small data transactions, the market will naturally reduce that activity. No consensus rule required.
For investors, the takeaway is simpler: Bitcoin works because no single group can force changes the network does not want. The BIP-110 debate, with all its noise and drama, is proof that Bitcoin’s decentralized governance is functioning exactly as designed. A proposal with near-zero miner support and single-digit node adoption will not change the network — and that stability is itself one of Bitcoin’s most valuable properties.
The cryptocurrency market remains highly volatile. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.
0% support and they still won’t drop it. this is vanity at this point, the proposers just can’t accept nobody wants their soft fork
imagine trying to force a fork nobody asked for. 1% signaling was already embarrassing, zero is just humiliating
block_size_purist zero miner support and they still push the deadline. at what point does this become obvious it was never meant to pass
block_size_purist zero miner support should have killed this proposal months ago. pushing an august deadline with 0% signaling is just embarrassing at this point
Ordinals already proved people will pay for block space regardless of what purists want. You can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube
Tomas R. ordinals proved block space is whatever people pay for. trying to classify valid transactions as spam is a losing battle
The August deadline is theater. They know miners won’t signal, they just want media coverage before quietly shelving it
zero percent miner signaling and they still push the august deadline. this is academic theater not a governance proposal
witness_data_ the proposers knew miners would reject it. the goal was always media coverage and signaling virtue around what counts as legitimate block space usage
ordinals proved block space is a market not a moral category. people pay for inscription data because they value it. BIP-110 trying to override that is pure ideology
BIP-110 sitting at 0% miner support tells you everything. you cant force a soft fork when the people securing the network disagree with it