Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110) has triggered a major governance debate within the Bitcoin community over proposed changes to the network's consensus rules. The proposal would temporarily restrict several methods used to embed non-financial data in Bitcoin transactions, with a mandatory signaling period beginning in August. The controversy centers on competing visions: supporters argue BIP-110 would reduce blockchain spam, while critics including Strategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor and Casa Chief Security Officer Jameson Lopp warn the changes would invalidate currently valid transactions and establish a dangerous precedent for censorship. The dispute stems from the 2023 launch of Ordinals, a protocol that enables NFT-like inscriptions on Bitcoin, which increased block space demand and transaction fees. Despite attracting only 1% miner support according to the proposal's monitoring dashboard, BIP-110 has become one of Bitcoin's most significant governance debates in recent years.
BIP-110 Proposes Technical Restrictions on Transaction Data
As a soft fork, BIP-110 would tighten Bitcoin's consensus rules by limiting several techniques used to embed data in transactions. The proposal would limit most new transaction outputs to 34 bytes, restore an 83-byte limit for OP_RETURN outputs, cap certain witness elements at 256 bytes, and temporarily restrict several Taproot features commonly used for inscriptions. Bitcoin transactions currently can include text, images, token metadata, and other information through transaction scripts and witness data beyond payment information.
Industry Leaders Oppose BIP-110 Implementation
Michael Saylor wrote on X that BIP-110 "turns a spam dispute into a consensus change that would invalidate some currently valid, fee-paying transactions." He stated, "There are 110 things more dangerous to Bitcoin than spam" and argued the precedent represents the real danger. Jameson Lopp wrote in a February blog post that BIP-110 would weaken Bitcoin's censorship resistance and predictability. "BIP-110 signals that the protocol can be altered to censor subjectively 'undesirable' transactions, eroding its image as permissionless programmable money," Lopp stated. Blockstream CEO Adam Back argued that Bitcoin's decentralized design prevents users from imposing preferences on others and that its technical consensus process is intentionally resistant to change. Back wrote on X, "If you won't listen to reason, educate yourself, learn, the same radical freedom applies to you: your permissionless recourse is to club together and create a fork."
Ordinals Protocol Sparked 2023 Block Space Debate
The current dispute dates back to early 2023 with the launch of Ordinals, a protocol created by Bitcoin developer Casey Rodarmor. Ordinals allows images, text, video, and other digital content to be inscribed directly onto individual satoshis, the smallest unit of Bitcoin. The protocol uses features introduced by Bitcoin's SegWit and Taproot upgrades to create NFT-like assets directly on the Bitcoin blockchain. As Ordinals and BRC-20 tokens gained popularity, demand for Bitcoin block space increased, pushing transaction fees higher. Critics including Bitcoin developer Luke Dashjr have argued that inscriptions exploit the Bitcoin network, describing them as spam rather than legitimate financial transactions.
BIP-110 Attracts 1% Miner Support Ahead of August Signaling
BIP-110's mandatory signaling period begins in August. According to the proposal's monitoring dashboard, only 1% of miners have shown support for BIP-110. The proposal has drawn reactions from Bitcoin developer Luke Dashjr, Blockstream CEO Adam Back, Strategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor, Casa Chief Security Officer Jameson Lopp, and Bitcoin advocate Samson Mow.
Samson Mow Calls for Consensus-Based Approach
In an essay posted to X on Tuesday titled The Bitcoin Alliance, Samson Mow argued that Bitcoin participants should think of themselves as an alliance rather than a community. "During the Blocksize War, there was never this 'if you're not with us, you're against us' mentality on our side," he wrote. "The small block camp never had to coerce anyone to join. We just all 'got it' and were confident in our position." The Blocksize Wars (2015–2017) centered on whether Bitcoin should increase its 1 MB block size limit, with the "small block" camp prevailing and "big blockers" forking off to create Bitcoin Cash in 2017 and Bitcoin SV in 2018. Mow wrote that he shares concerns about blockchain spam but opposes BIP-110 because he believes protocol changes require broad consensus. Mow criticized Bitcoin Core developers for their handling of recent OP_RETURN policy changes. "The way they handled the OP_RETURN change was full of stupid mistakes, from banning people on GitHub to the ninja ACKs," he wrote.
FAQ
What technical changes would BIP-110 make to Bitcoin transactions?
BIP-110 would limit most new transaction outputs to 34 bytes, restore an 83-byte limit for OP_RETURN outputs, cap certain witness elements at 256 bytes, and temporarily restrict several Taproot features commonly used for inscriptions.
How much miner support does BIP-110 currently have?
According to the proposal's monitoring dashboard, only 1% of miners have shown support for BIP-110. The mandatory signaling period begins in August.
Why did the BIP-110 debate begin?
The dispute dates back to early 2023 with the launch of Ordinals, a protocol that allows images, text, video, and other digital content to be inscribed directly onto individual satoshis. As Ordinals and BRC-20 tokens gained popularity, demand for Bitcoin block space increased, pushing transaction fees higher and sparking debate about blockchain spam.
