Bitcoin BIP 110 Fork Proposal Heads Toward August Deadline With Zero Miner Support as Saylor and Adam Back Oppose It

A controversial proposal to purge non-financial data from the Bitcoin blockchain is heading toward an August deadline with less than one percent miner support, and two of Bitcoin’s most influential voices just came out swinging against it. The fight over BIP 110 is not really about spam. It is about who gets to decide what Bitcoin is for.

By Ana Gonzalez | July 12, 2026

The Legislative Move: What BIP 110 Actually Proposes

Bitcoin transactions can carry money and extra data. An OP_RETURN section acts like a small note field inside a transaction. Data pushes allow larger chunks of raw data to be embedded in Bitcoin script or witness data. Ordinals, inscriptions, and some token schemes use these paths to put images, text, or token metadata on-chain.

BIP 110, formally titled the Reduced Data Temporary Soft Fork, would temporarily tighten those paths for one year. The proposal would cap OP_RETURN at its older, smaller size, block most arbitrary data chunks above 256 bytes, and restrict certain script formats used primarily for data storage.

Supporters argue this keeps Bitcoin focused on payments and reduces the burden on node operators who store and validate the blockchain. Critics see it as a dangerous precedent: turning a policy disagreement about spam into a consensus rule that would invalidate currently valid, fee-paying transactions.

The mechanism is unusual. BIP 110 does not follow the traditional path of overwhelming miner approval. Instead, it uses a user-activated soft fork, a process where nodes enforce a rule whether or not miners agree. The signaling threshold is set at 55 percent rather than the traditional 95 percent, a significantly lower bar.

Jurisdiction Context: How Bitcoin Governance Actually Works

Bitcoin has no CEO, no foundation with binding authority, and no central committee. Changes to the protocol depend on a rough consensus among miners, node operators, developers, and users. This makes governance messy and slow, but it is also the core value proposition. No single entity can force a change.

A user-activated soft fork flips the usual dynamic. Instead of miners signaling readiness first, nodes simply start enforcing the new rules on a set date. If enough of the network enforces the rules, miners who produce blocks that violate them find their blocks rejected. It is a high-stakes game of chicken.

The current signaling period runs from block 957,600 to 959,615. A voluntary lock-in deadline falls at block 961,542 in the following period, expected in early August. According to the BIP 110 signaling monitor, miner signaling has never risen above approximately one percent in any period and stands at zero in the current window. No major mining pool has backed it.

Among nodes, adoption sits in the low single digits, carried almost entirely by Bitcoin Knots, an alternative to the dominant Bitcoin Core software. In practical terms, this means BIP 110 is on track to fail its signaling window. If its supporters proceed anyway, they would likely create a small minority chain rather than a network-wide upgrade.

Industry Reaction: Saylor and Back Draw a Line

Two of Bitcoin’s most prominent figures publicly opposed the measure on Saturday, dealing a significant blow to its legitimacy.

Michael Saylor, founder of Strategy and one of the largest corporate Bitcoin holders, posted that there are 110 things more dangerous to Bitcoin than spam. His argument centers on precedent. BIP 110 turns a spam dispute into a consensus change that would invalidate some currently valid, fee-paying transactions. For Saylor, the precedent of deciding which transactions are acceptable is far more dangerous than the spam itself.

Adam Back, the Blockstream co-founder whose hashcash design is cited in the original Bitcoin white paper, made a similar case at greater length. He addressed the newcomers backing the proposal directly, stating that Bitcoin respectfully says no to what they want. His message was unequivocal: if they remain unconvinced, their real recourse is to group together and fork away, but Bitcoin will not be joining it.

The opposition from Saylor and Back matters because both carry enormous credibility. Saylor represents the institutional capital flowing into Bitcoin through corporate treasury strategies. Back represents the cypherpunk origins and technical foundations. When both land on the same side of a debate, it signals where the broader community is likely to settle.

Compliance Hurdles: Why This Fight Matters Beyond Bitcoin

The BIP 110 debate may seem like an obscure technical squabble, but it has implications that extend well beyond Bitcoin’s community. For regulators and institutional investors watching the space, governance stability is a key factor in adoption decisions.

When Bitcoin goes through public disputes about consensus rules, it creates uncertainty. Institutions that allocate to Bitcoin through ETFs or direct treasury purchases want to understand the protocol’s upgrade path. A messy fork debate, even one that ultimately fails, adds friction to due diligence processes.

For everyday investors, the practical concern is simpler. If a faction of the Bitcoin community were to successfully push through a restrictive change, even on a minority chain, it could create confusion. Forks produce two versions of the asset. Exchanges must decide which to support. Holders must navigate claims on both chains. The 2017 Bitcoin Cash fork and subsequent chain splits demonstrated how messy and costly these events can be.

There is also the question of transaction censorship. The core innovation of Bitcoin is that anyone can send value to anyone else without asking permission. BIP 110 would, for the first time, introduce a rule about what kinds of data are acceptable in transactions. Even if the intent is limited to spam reduction, the principle of restricting fee-paying transactions makes many Bitcoiners deeply uncomfortable.

What’s Next: The August Deadline and Beyond

Barring a dramatic shift in miner and node support over the coming weeks, BIP 110 appears destined to fail its signaling window. The proposal’s backers would need a sudden and unprecedented surge in adoption to reach even the lowered 55 percent threshold.

If the proposal fails, the underlying debate about non-financial data on Bitcoin will continue. Ordinals and inscriptions have generated significant fee revenue for miners and sparked renewed interest in the network’s capabilities. They have also increased block sizes and node storage requirements, which is a legitimate concern for decentralization.

The more likely path forward is a combination of technical solutions and social norms rather than consensus rule changes. Bitcoin Core developers can improve how nodes handle data-heavy transactions. The market can decide through fees what data is worth putting on-chain. And the community can establish norms about responsible use of block space.

For investors, the BIP 110 saga is a reminder that Bitcoin’s governance is a feature, not a bug. The difficulty of making changes is precisely what makes the network valuable. A protocol that can be easily modified by a small group is far less trustworthy as a store of value than one that requires broad consensus. The fact that BIP 110 is failing despite significant social media attention demonstrates that Bitcoin’s checks and balances are working as designed.

Bitcoin is currently trading around 64,000 USD, according to the latest market data. The BIP 110 debate has had minimal direct price impact, suggesting the market views it as a governance exercise rather than a material risk. That could change if the proposal unexpectedly gains traction, but for now, the most likely outcome is that it fades away as the August deadline passes.

The cryptocurrency market remains highly volatile. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.