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

Original | Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina)

Author | Golem (@web3_golem)

As the August mandatory window period approaches, discussions around the BIP-110 proposal have been heating up once again.

BIP-110 was proposed by Dathon Ohm in December 2025 and is supported by Bitcoin Core developer Luke Dashjr. The proposal aims to limit arbitrary/non-monetary data in Bitcoin transactions within the next year, primarily targeting large-scale data storage like Ordinals and Bitcoin NFTs, hoping to reduce "junk transactions" on the network and refocus Bitcoin on its monetary function.

The proposal has been controversial since its inception, but data shows that BIP-110 is currently not supported by mainstream miners and nodes. The activation threshold for BIP-110 is 55%. Statistics show that miner support is currently less than 1%, and out of a total of 102,674 nodes on the network, only 15,035 nodes are willing to implement BIP-110, a rate of 14.64%.

BIP-110 Miner and Node Support Rate

Typically, such a low-support proposal would not pass on the Bitcoin network. However, the aggressive nature of BIP-110 lies in the fact that even without consensus, nodes supporting BIP-110 would enforce it. If BIP-110 does not reach the 55% activation threshold before block height 961,632, it will enter a mandatory window period (block heights 961,632 - 963,647). During this period, nodes running BIP-110 will reject non-compliant blocks, forcibly pushing the approval rate to 100%, allowing BIP-110 to be forcibly activated and enforced at block height 965,664.

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

BIP-110 Remains Highly Controversial

According to Bitcoin's "longest chain principle," only when the actual mining power supporting BIP-100 becomes the majority (>50%) will they become the longest chain, and the entire network will unify under the new rules, meaning a successful soft fork. Therefore, although the forced activation of BIP-110 seems inevitable, its ultimate survival still depends on consensus. Otherwise, BIP-110 will likely suffer the same fate as the vast majority of Bitcoin soft forks in history: natural death.

Supporters: BIP-110 is Not a Change, but a Reversal of Change

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

Luke Dashjr is seen as a representative figure of Bitcoin maximalism. They are unwilling to see Bitcoin block space used for any purpose other than Bitcoin transfers. The BIP-110 proposal views the inscriptions that appeared in 2022 as a "Bitcoin attack" because allowing arbitrary data to be embedded in Bitcoin transactions would place a huge and unnecessary burden on nodes. Furthermore, this "junk data" would occupy a large amount of block space, forcing monetary transactions to increase their bidding threshold to be included in blocks, thus crowding out Bitcoin's monetary use case.

Therefore, Luke Dashjr posted on the X platform stating that BIP-110 is not a change, but a reversal of change. He also employed a fair amount of sophistry when facing opposition to BIP-110, claiming on one hand that BIP-110 is not hostile and doesn't force anyone to accept it, while on the other hand stating that anyone opposing BIP-110 is the true Bitcoin attacker.

Furthermore, although the current miner vote in favor of BIP-110 is very low (<1%), Luke Dashjr remains optimistic, believing that the miner vote directly opposing BIP-110 is also nearly 0%. His implication is that miners are not making a decision; once BIP-110 is activated, they will naturally follow.

In reality, as of now, the only mining pool publicly supporting BIP-110 is Luke Dashjr's own Ocean. F2Pool co-founder Wang Chun publicly stated as early as February that he absolutely would not support BIP-110. Luke Dashjr confidently replied under his post, saying, "Then you will mine invalid blocks and lose all rewards."

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

Bitcoin Mining Pool Rankings

If Ocean ends up being the only mining pool supporting the fork, they would only be able to produce 3-5 blocks per day. Such efficiency and block production speed would not allow 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 don't just focus on whether it will succeed after activation. They criticize it for failing to solve the "junk transaction" problem on the Bitcoin network while creating many potential new issues. In short, the strong opposition to BIP-110 stems from concerns about numerous unintended consequences, not from any fondness for Ordinals or inscriptions. Key figures opposing the proposal include cypherpunk pioneer Adam Back, Bitcoin Core developer Jameson Lopp, and Strategy founder Michael Saylor.

First, opponents argue that BIP-110 cannot completely solve the "junk transaction" problem facing the Bitcoin network. The author of the BIP-110 proposal himself admits it can only provide temporary relief. Jameson Lopp believes that Bitcoin's block size limit and the competitive fee market for block space have already mitigated the junk transaction problem to some extent. However, the reason Bitcoin remains a target for various junk transaction attacks is that very few people are actually using the Bitcoin network. Transaction fees have remained low, preventing the formation of fee pressure sufficient to deter the majority of spam transactions.

Furthermore, BIP-110 would stifle future innovation in Bitcoin. The BIP-110 proposal itself acknowledges that restrictions on Taproot hinder the implementation of advanced features or complex contracts like BitVM on the Bitcoin network. Although BIP-110 is described as a temporary one-year restriction, Jameson Lopp believes this is just a stalling tactic by Luke Dashjr. If these restrictions severely hamper 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 argues that BIP-110 would subjectively censor transactions within blocks, fundamentally aiming to control others. This goes against the neutral and censorship-resistant spirit that the Bitcoin network has upheld since its inception, representing a dangerous step towards centralization and control. Adam Back uses Bitcoin maximalism to negate the extremist Bitcoin proponents' reversal of change in Bitcoin, which is a case of "fighting fire with fire."

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

Furthermore, Michael Saylor believes that if BIP-110 becomes consensus, some valid fee-paying transactions would also become invalid, and setting such a censorship precedent is the real danger.

A most concerning severe consequence for opponents is that the activation of BIP-110 could split the Bitcoin chain ecosystem. Two competing chains would emerge, each vying for the title of "true Bitcoin." In this scenario, the uncertainty surrounding the fork outcome could potentially lead to a Bitcoin double-spending risk. Even without a double spend, if BIP-110 ultimately evolves into a new chain, it would fragment Bitcoin's developer resources, hashing power, and monetary consensus.

Opponents argue that BIP-110 is attempting to solve a cultural issue with a technical solution, and it may well end up creating even more unpredictable problems.

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

Jameson Lopp's Bet Offer 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" is 10%. The "Yes" settlement condition is that the BIP-110 chain becomes the "Bitcoin longest chain" accepted by the majority of nodes.

What Happens After BIP-110 Activation?

We can now consider some hypothetical scenarios, assuming BIP-110 is forcibly activated at block height 965,664 (late August to early September).

Scenario One is as described above. Upon reaching the activation height, BIP-110 nodes reject main chain blocks, but there is an insufficient proportion of miners producing new blocks compliant with BIP-110 rules. The BIP-110 chain's block production becomes extremely slow and eventually stops, ceasing to "grow."

Scenario Two involves a certain proportion of miners supporting BIP-110. Proponents believe they have an "asymmetric advantage" because BIP-110's rules are stricter. While BIP-110 nodes would reject blocks containing non-compliant data (inscriptions, etc.), non-BIP-110 nodes (mainstream Core nodes) would still consider blocks produced by BIP-110 nodes as valid.

Moreover, currently, the proportion of inscription transactions in Bitcoin block space has dropped to 5%, with over 95% still being traditional Bitcoin transfer transactions. BIP-110 nodes would still be able to receive a large number of mainstream blocks. This is why Luke Dashjr believes BIP-110 could eventually become the "longest chain" and unify the network.

Bitcoin Block Space Usage by Transaction Type

Scenario Three involves a certain proportion of miners supporting BIP-110, but their hashing power never surpasses the existing majority chain. Typically, miners are extremely rational. Once their machines start, they consume electricity costs. In the 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) and join the majority chain, as the minority chain not only lags in length but also accumulates fewer Bitcoin rewards. This scenario would eventually devolve into Scenario One.

So, what if Luke Dashjr's influence is extremely strong, and miners become irrational, persisting in mining on the BIP-110 chain? This chain would continue to operate independently, but block times could become very slow. Miners would be almost entirely operating at a loss, engaging in meaningless energy consumption. The most logical outcome in this situation would be that the BIP-110 chain permanently forks into an independent chain under the BIP-110 supporters, who would "manually" adjust the block difficulty and launch a new network token.

However, Luke Dashjr has emphasized multiple times that he rejects a BIP-110 hard fork, believing that the time for using hard forks has not yet come. But just as water can carry a boat or capsize it, it's possible that by that time, Luke Dashjr himself might be swept up by the will of the masses, with no choice but to proceed.

Therefore, while the minority chain run by BIP-110 supporters could technically continue operating, it would most likely struggle to thrive. This depends on economic and ecosystem factors, including support from wallets, exchanges, users, and more. There are actually many such examples on the Bitcoin network, with most ending in failure. Even in successful cases, the ceiling is highest on independent coins like BCH and BSV.