BIP-110 has entered its signaling phase on Bitcoin after block 961, 632, but miner support is still stuck below 3%. That is not momentum. That is a network-wide shrug.
- Miner support: 2.53%, far below the reported 55% threshold
- What BIP-110 does: temporarily restricts certain non-financial data in Bitcoin transactions
- How supporters want it activated: as a user-activated soft fork, or UASF
- Main risk: a temporary chain split if nodes reject noncompliant blocks
The mandatory signaling period began at about 19:35 UTC on Saturday and runs until block 965, 664, roughly four weeks later. Early support has rarely climbed above 2.5%, according to Cointelegraph and CoinDesk reporting. That is a rough start for any proposal, especially one asking Bitcoin to pick a side in yet another governance fight.
BIP-110 has entered its signaling phase on Bitcoin after block 961, 632, but miner support is still stuck below 3%. That is not momentum. That is a network-wide shrug.
BIP-110 is aimed at restricting certain forms of non-financial data embedded in Bitcoin transactions. In plain English: it tries to limit extra stuff being stuffed into transactions that is not directly tied to sending money.
Some people see that as good housekeeping. Others see it as protocol-level discrimination against how blockspace is used. Bitcoin, as usual, has managed to turn a technical change into a philosophical knife fight.
What BIP-110 actually changes
According to Cointelegraph, BIP-110 was written by pseudonymous developer Dathon Ohm and proposes roughly one year of extra consensus restrictions. Those include size limits on certain scripts and outputs, capped OP_RETURN data, tighter limits on some data pushes and witness elements, and temporary restrictions on some Taproot-related features. UTXOs created before activation would be exempt.
That matters because this is not just vague anti-inscription rhetoric. It is a concrete protocol intervention with real limits on what can be encoded on-chain.
For readers less familiar with the jargon: OP_RETURN is a Bitcoin script feature used to attach small pieces of data to a transaction. Witness data is part of how SegWit-style transactions are structured. Taproot is a Bitcoin upgrade that expanded how scripts can be handled more efficiently and privately. When proposals start putting caps on these pieces, they are not nibbling around the edges. They are changing what users can do with blockspace.
Supporters argue that the network should not be used as a catch-all data warehouse. Bitcoin blocks are scarce, fees are real, and every byte competes with actual financial transactions. That argument is not nonsense. A chain that tries to be everything usually ends up being a bloated mess that is expensive to run and easier to abuse.
But the opposite risk is just as real. Once protocol rules start deciding which kinds of data are acceptable, the debate shifts from resource management to governance. That is where things get ugly.
Why miner support matters, and why it may not decide the outcome
Bitcoin miners build blocks, but nodes validate the rules. That split is the entire battle here.
Under normal conditions, miner signaling is a strong sign of whether a proposal has a path to activation. BIP-110 is not getting that kind of support so far. Cointelegraph reports support at 2.53%, based on 51 of the preceding 2, 016 blocks, while CoinDesk says support has seldom exceeded 2.5%.
That is weak. Very weak. If this were a stock chart, people would already be writing obituary threads.
Still, supporters are not waiting for miners to gracefully approve the proposal. They are pushing it as a user-activated soft fork, or UASF. In that model, node operators install and enforce the new rules themselves, even without broad miner backing.
In simple terms: if enough economically relevant nodes reject blocks that do not follow BIP-110, miners may be forced to adapt or risk producing blocks that the market ignores. That is the pressure tactic.
CoinDesk reports that nodes enforcing BIP-110 would reject blocks from miners that do not signal support. Ordinary Bitcoin nodes would still follow the rules they already run, only nodes that install the BIP-110-enforcing software would reject noncompliant blocks. That distinction matters. A UASF is powerful, but it is not magic.
The chain split risk is real
If enforcing nodes reject blocks mined under the old rules, Bitcoin could briefly split into competing chains. One branch would be supported by most hash power and the participants who continue following the existing rules. The other would be a smaller chain enforcing BIP-110.
That kind of split can be chaotic. Exchanges have to decide what to list. Custodians have to decide what they are actually holding. Users get to enjoy the ancient crypto tradition of wondering which chain is “real” before the market eventually decides for them.
CoinDesk notes that a minority chain could emerge if enough nodes enforce the proposal. Cointelegraph says a minority BIP-110 branch has already appeared in the reporting window, though it quickly fell behind the dominant chain. That is a warning sign, not a victory lap.
The key point is this: in Bitcoin, the chain with the most hash power is not automatically the one the market treats as Bitcoin if economic nodes decide otherwise. That is the whole point of user enforcement, and also why it can get messy fast.
Why the SegWit comparison keeps coming up
Supporters are leaning on Bitcoin’s 2017 SegWit activation and BIP-148 as precedent. That comparison is not random. BIP-148 was a UASF that helped pressure miners into following the SegWit upgrade after miner signaling stalled.
It is a real historical example of users pushing back against miner inertia. So yes, the playbook exists.
But the current environment is not 2017, and pretending otherwise would be lazy. The ecosystem is more mature, infrastructure is more interconnected, and participants are generally less willing to improvise through a live governance stress test. CoinDesk also describes today’s environment as considerably different, which is the right amount of caution.
History can guide a debate, but it does not guarantee an outcome. Crypto loves to recycle old battles as if precedent were a spell. It is not. It is just context.
The critics are not small voices
The proposal has split opinion inside the Bitcoin community, and the names pushing back are heavyweights. Cointelegraph and CoinDesk both identify Michael Saylor, Strategy chairman, and Adam Back, Blockstream CEO, as critics.
Those are not fringe observers. They are influential figures in Bitcoin discourse, and their opposition matters because it signals a serious concern that the proposal could divide the network or cause avoidable disruption.
That said, influential critics do not get a veto over Bitcoin. They can argue, persuade, and warn, but they cannot unilaterally decide consensus for everyone else. That is the part of decentralization people love right up until it starts making decisions they dislike.
What supporters are really betting on
At a high level, BIP-110 supporters appear to be betting on one thing: that enough node operators, exchanges, and other economically important participants will side with them to pressure miners into compliance.
If that happens, miner resistance may matter less than it does today. If it does not, the proposal could stall out, or worse, create a fragmented mess that nobody wanted and everybody has to clean up.
There is also a more uncomfortable question underneath the technical details: is BIP-110 trying to solve a genuine network resource problem, or is it mostly a fight over who gets to define acceptable blockspace use? The answer depends on whether you view Bitcoin as a strictly monetary network that should stay disciplined or as an open system where users should be able to experiment until the market says stop.
Both camps have a case. Neither camp is free of ideology. Welcome to Bitcoin governance, where the code is supposed to be law and the humans still find a way to turn it into politics.
Key questions and takeaways
-
What is BIP-110 trying to do?
It aims to temporarily restrict certain non-financial data in Bitcoin transactions, including specific script, output, OP_RETURN, witness, and Taproot-related limits. -
How much miner support does it have?
Very little. Cointelegraph reports 2.53% support, and CoinDesk says support has rarely exceeded 2.5%, which is far below the reported 55% threshold. -
What is a UASF?
A user-activated soft fork is when node operators enforce new rules themselves instead of waiting for miners to agree. It shifts leverage toward economic users and validating nodes. -
Could this trigger a chain split?
Yes. If enforcing nodes reject noncompliant blocks, two competing chains could temporarily exist before one side gains clear market support or fades out. -
Why do people keep comparing this to SegWit and BIP-148?
Because BIP-148 showed that user pressure can move miners when signaling stalls. The comparison is useful, but the current environment is materially different. -
What should traders and users watch next?
Miner signaling through block 965, 664, plus whether node operators, exchanges, and other economic actors publicly commit to enforcing BIP-110. That will tell the real story, not the noise.
BIP-110 is now a live test of Bitcoin’s governance model. The signaling window is open, miner support is tiny, and the stakes are bigger than one proposal. If the campaign gains traction, it could become another example of decentralized pressure forcing a network change. If it fails, it will be another reminder that Bitcoin consensus is hard, coordination is harder, and nobody gets to fiat-print agreement out of thin air.
BIP-110 is now a live test of Bitcoin’s governance model. The signaling window is open, miner support is tiny, and the stakes are bigger than one proposal. If the campaign gains traction, it could become another example of decentralized pressure forcing a network change. If it fails, it will be another reminder that Bitcoin consensus is hard, coordination is harder, and nobody gets to fiat-print agreement out of thin air.
BIP-110 is now a live test of Bitcoin’s governance model. The signaling window is open, miner support is tiny, and the stakes are bigger than one proposal. If the campaign gains traction, it could become another example of decentralized pressure forcing a network change. If it fails, it will be another reminder that Bitcoin consensus is hard, coordination is harder, and nobody gets to fiat-print agreement out of thin air.
BIP-110 is now a live test of Bitcoin’s governance model. The signaling window is open, miner support is tiny, and the stakes are bigger than one proposal. If the campaign gains traction, it could become another example of decentralized pressure forcing a network change. If it fails, it will be another reminder that Bitcoin consensus is hard, coordination is harder, and nobody gets to fiat-print agreement out of thin air.
BIP-110 is now a live test of Bitcoin’s governance model. The signaling window is open, miner support is tiny, and the stakes are bigger than one proposal. If the campaign gains traction, it could become another example of decentralized pressure forcing a network change. If it fails, it will be another reminder that Bitcoin consensus is hard, coordination is harder, and nobody gets to fiat-print agreement out of thin air.
BIP-110 is now a live test of Bitcoin’s governance model. The signaling window is open, miner support is tiny, and the stakes are bigger than one proposal. If the campaign gains traction, it could become another example of decentralized pressure forcing a network change. If it fails, it will be another reminder that Bitcoin consensus is hard, coordination is harder, and nobody gets to fiat-print agreement out of thin air.
BIP-110 is now a live test of Bitcoin’s governance model. The signaling window is open, miner support is tiny, and the stakes are bigger than one proposal. If the campaign gains traction, it could become another example of decentralized pressure forcing a network change. If it fails, it will be another reminder that Bitcoin consensus is hard, coordination is harder, and nobody gets to fiat-print agreement out of thin air.
Further reading
A useful extra take on the latest BIP-110 signaling update.
