Support rate below 1%, is BIP-110 still pushing Bitcoin toward a soft fork?

Original by Odaily (@OdailyChina)

Author: Golem (@web3_golem)

With the August forced window period approaching, discussions around the BIP-110 proposal have recently heated up again.

BIP-110 was proposed by Dathon Ohm in December 2025 and is supported by Bitcoin Core developer Luke Dashjr. The proposal aims to restrict arbitrary/non-monetary data in Bitcoin transactions over the next year, primarily targeting large data storage like Ordinals and Bitcoin NFTs, with the goal of reducing "spam transactions" on the network and refocusing Bitcoin on its monetary function.

The proposal has been controversial since its inception, but data shows that BIP-110 currently lacks mainstream support from miners and nodes. The activation threshold for BIP-110 is 55%. According to statistics, miner support is currently below 1%, and out of a total of 102,674 nodes on the network, only 15,035 are willing to enforce BIP-110, a proportion of 14.64%.

BIP-110 Miner and Node Support Rate

Typically, a proposal with such low support would not pass on the Bitcoin network. However, the contentious aspect of BIP-110 is that even without consensus, nodes supporting BIP-110 will enforce it regardless. If BIP-110 does not reach the 55% activation threshold before block height 961,632, it will enter a forced window period (block heights 961,632 - 963,647). During this period, nodes running BIP-110 will reject non-compliant blocks, forcibly pushing the adoption rate to 100%, eventually leading to BIP-110 being forcefully activated at block height 965,664.

Based on the current block production rate of the Bitcoin network, BIP-110 will enter the forced window period in early August. This means that although BIP-110 is a soft fork proposal, the Bitcoin network will experience a chain split (the minority chain supporting BIP-110 vs. the main chain not supporting BIP-110).

BIP-110 Remains Highly Controversial

According to Bitcoin's "longest chain rule," a soft fork succeeds only when the actual mining power supporting BIP-110 constitutes the majority (>50%), thus becoming the longest chain and unifying the network under the new rules. Therefore, while the forced activation of BIP-110 seems inevitable, its long-term viability still depends on consensus. Otherwise, BIP-110 will likely share the fate of most failed Bitcoin soft forks in history: a natural death.

Supporters: BIP-110 is Not a Change, But a Denial of Change

The main advocate for BIP-110 is Luke Dashjr and his mining pool, Ocean. Dashjr has long been a vocal opponent of BRC-20 and inscriptions within the Bitcoin developer community, and he provided the draft proposal for BIP-110.

Luke Dashjr is seen as a representative of Bitcoin maximalism. He and his followers do not want Bitcoin block space used for any purpose other than Bitcoin transfers. The BIP-110 proposal views the inscriptions that emerged in 2022 as a "Bitcoin attack," arguing that allowing arbitrary data embedded in Bitcoin transactions places a significant and unnecessary burden on nodes. Simultaneously, this "spam data" occupies substantial block space, forcing monetary transactions to compete at higher fee levels to be included, thereby crowding out Bitcoin's primary use case as a currency.

Therefore, Luke Dashjr stated on platform X that BIP-110 is not a change, but a denial of change. In response to opponents of BIP-110, he also employed a degree of sophistry, claiming on one hand that BIP-110 is not hostile and does not force anyone to accept it, while on the other hand suggesting that those who oppose BIP-110 are the true Bitcoin attackers.

Furthermore, despite the currently very low miner vote in favor of BIP-110 (<1%), Luke Dashjr remains optimistic, arguing that the miner vote directly opposing BIP-110 is also nearly 0%. His implication is that miners are not making a decisive choice and will simply follow along once BIP-110 is activated.

In reality, the only mining pool currently publicly supporting BIP-110 is Luke Dashjr's own Ocean. As early as February, Wang Chun, co-founder of F2Pool, publicly stated his firm opposition to BIP-110. Luke Dashjr confidently replied under Wang Chun's post, saying, "Then you will be mining invalid blocks and losing all your rewards."

According to miningradar data, F2Pool is the third-largest Bitcoin mining pool, accounting for 13.6% of the total hashrate. In contrast, Ocean's current hashrate is only 24.6 EH/s, representing 2.6% of the network's total hashrate.

Bitcoin Mining Pool Rankings

If Ocean ends up being the only pool supporting the fork, they would only be able to produce 3-5 blocks per day. Such efficiency and block production speed would be insufficient for them to become the "longest chain" on the Bitcoin network.

Opponents: BIP-110 Doesn't Solve Problems, It Creates New Ones

Opponents of the BIP-110 proposal do not just focus on whether it will succeed after activation. They criticize its inability to solve the "spam transaction" problem on the Bitcoin network while simultaneously creating numerous potential new issues. In short, the strong opposition to BIP-110 stems from concerns about its unintended consequences, not from any fondness for Ordinals or inscriptions. Key figures opposing BIP-110 include crypto pioneer Adam Back, Bitcoin Core developer Jameson Lopp, and Strategy founder Michael Saylor.

Firstly, opponents argue that BIP-110 cannot fully solve the "spam transaction" issue. The author of the BIP-110 proposal acknowledges it only provides temporary relief. Jameson Lopp argues that Bitcoin's block size limit and the competitive fee market for block space have already mitigated the spam issue to some extent. However, Bitcoin remains a target for various spam attacks primarily because very few people actually use the Bitcoin network, keeping fees low, which fails to create the fee pressure necessary to deter most spam.

Furthermore, BIP-110 could stifle future innovation on Bitcoin. The proposal itself acknowledges that limitations on Taproot could hinder the implementation of advanced functionalities like BitVM or complex covenants on the Bitcoin network. Although BIP-110 is described as a temporary, one-year restriction, Jameson Lopp sees it as a delaying tactic by Luke Dashjr. If these restrictions severely impede future Bitcoin upgrades, it could potentially lead to a Bitcoin hard fork rather than a soft fork.

Adam Back focuses more on Bitcoin's censorship resistance and decentralized spirit. He believes that BIP-110, by subjectively censoring transactions within blocks, fundamentally aims to police others. This contradicts the principle of neutrality and censorship resistance that Bitcoin has upheld since its inception, representing a dangerous step towards centralization and control. Adam Back uses Bitcoin's core principles to negate the Bitcoin extremist's proposed change to Bitcoin, effectively "fighting magic with magic."

Michael Saylor described BIP-110 as a "Bitcoin Iatrogenic Proposal," suggesting that the "treatment" itself will cause harm to Bitcoin, rather than solving the existing problems.

Furthermore, Michael Saylor argues that if BIP-110 becomes consensus, some valid, fee-paying transactions could become invalidated. Creating this precedent of censorship is the real danger.

A major concern among opponents is the potential for BIP-110 activation to split the Bitcoin chain ecosystem. This could lead to two competing chains vying for the title of the "true Bitcoin," potentially creating a risk of double-spending due to the uncertainty of the fork outcome. Even without a double-spend scenario, if BIP-110 evolves into a new chain, it would fragment Bitcoin's developer resources, hashrate, and monetary consensus.

Opponents believe BIP-110 is attempting to solve a cultural problem with technical means, and will likely create even more unpredictable issues in the process.

Despite their concerns, opponents remain confident in BIP-110's failure. Jameson Lopp placed a bet against BIP-110 back in February, with a minimum stake of 1 BTC. To date, no BIP-110 supporter has publicly accepted the wager.

Jameson Lopp's Bet Invitation to BIP-110 Supporters

On the prediction market Predyx, the probability of "BIP-110 will be activated and enforced on Bitcoin between September 1 and 7, 2026" stands at 10%. The "Yes" settlement condition requires the BIP-110 chain to become the "longest Bitcoin chain" accepted by the majority of nodes.

What Happens After BIP-110 Activation?

We can now create some hypothetical scenarios for what happens when BIP-110 is finally forced to activate at block height 965,664 (around late August to early September).

The first scenario, as described earlier, involves BIP-110 nodes rejecting main chain blocks upon activation height. However, without a sufficient proportion of miners producing new blocks that comply with BIP-110 rules, the BIP-110 chain's block production slows to a crawl and eventually stops "growing."

The second scenario involves a certain percentage of miners supporting BIP-110. Supporters believe they have an "asymmetric advantage" because BIP-110 rules are stricter. While BIP-110 nodes will reject blocks containing invalid data (like inscriptions), non-BIP-110 nodes (mainstream Core nodes) will consider blocks produced by BIP-110 nodes as valid.

Moreover, currently in Bitcoin block space, inscription transactions have dropped to 5% of the total, with over 95% being traditional Bitcoin transfer transactions. Thus, BIP-110 nodes can still accept a large number of mainstream blocks. This is why Luke Dashjr believes BIP-110 will eventually become the "longest chain" and unify the network.

Proportion of Different Transaction Types Using Bitcoin Block Space

The third scenario is that a certain percentage of miners support BIP-110, but their hashrate never surpasses the existing majority chain. Typically, miners are extremely rational because their machines burn electricity as soon as they start running. In a competition between two chains, miners weigh the pros and cons. Miners on the BIP-110 chain would be more likely to abandon their sunk costs (mining rewards on the minority chain) to join the majority chain, as the minority chain not only lags in length but also accumulates fewer Bitcoin rewards. This eventually morphs into the first scenario.

What if, assuming Luke Dashjr has immense influence, miners become irrational and insist on mining on the BIP-110 chain? This chain could continue to operate independently, albeit with potentially very slow block times. Miners would essentially be mining for ideological reasons, engaging in arguably meaningless energy consumption. The most logical outcome here is that the BIP-110 chain permanently forks into an independent chain under its supporters, manually adjusting block difficulty and potentially launching a new network token.

However, Luke Dashjr has emphasized multiple times that he rejects a BIP-110 hard fork, arguing that it is not yet time for such measures. Just as "Water can carry a boat, it can also capsize it," at that point, Dashjr might find himself swept along by the will of the masses, with no choice but to proceed.

Therefore, while the minority chain run by BIP-110 supporters can technically continue to operate, it is unlikely to thrive. This depends on economic and ecosystem factors, including support from wallets, exchanges, and users. There are many such examples on the Bitcoin network, with most ending in failure. Even in successful cases, their ceiling is typically defined by independent coins like BCH or BSV.