CoinDesk
BIP-110, a proposal to temporarily tighten Bitcoin's consensus rules and restrict non-financial transaction data such as Ordinals inscriptions, has effectively collapsed after failing to attract meaningful support. Just over 0.7% of miners signalled backing as of the latest tally, well short of the threshold needed to activate. The proposal's collapse underlines how hard it remains to push content-bearing changes through Bitcoin's distributed governance without alignment across developers, miners, wallets and institutional holders.
Why it matters
The fight over BIP-110 reopened one of Bitcoin's oldest fault lines: whether the network's blockspace exists purely for peer-to-peer cash, or whether any valid fee-paying transaction is fair use. Supporters, including veteran developer Luke Dashjr, framed the proposal as restoring Bitcoin's original purpose and protecting decentralization by keeping block sizes lean. Critics, from Strategy's Michael Saylor to Blockstream's Adam Back, warned that subjective judgements about "good" and "bad" transactions set a precedent that could eventually be turned against any category of user. Saylor's July 11 X post distilled the institutional view: "That precedent is the danger. We should save our energy for threats that really matter."
The activation method was equally contentious. BIP-110 revived a user-activated soft fork pathway, where upgraded nodes would enforce new rules if predefined conditions were met, a route many veterans associate with the divisive 2017 block-size wars. Mining pools had no incentive to reject fee-paying transactions, and corporate holders wanted nothing to do with another governance battle, leaving the proposal stranded.
Market impact
There is no direct price or flow signal in the rejection itself, but the episode is a useful read on how Bitcoin's governance absorbs contentious ideas. Roughly 0.7% miner support is functionally zero, and the absence of any institutional champion ensured the proposal could not bridge to miners.
Frequently asked questions
-
What was Bitcoin's BIP-110 supposed to do?
BIP-110 proposed a temporary tightening of Bitcoin's consensus rules to make non-financial transaction data, including Ordinals-style inscriptions, far harder to process. The roughly one-year window was meant to preserve blockspace while longer-term solutions were discussed.
-
Why did BIP-110 fail to gain support?
It attracted only about 0.7% miner support, far below what is needed to activate a Bitcoin upgrade. Mining pools had no incentive to reject fee-paying transactions, and institutional holders publicly opposed the proposal.
-
Who publicly opposed BIP-110?
Strategy founder Michael Saylor wrote on X on July 11 that the precedent was the real danger, and Blockstream co-founder Adam Back was a consistent critic. Veteran developer Luke Dashjr was among the most prominent supporters.
-
How does a Bitcoin upgrade normally get activated?
Bitcoin upgrades typically only proceed after overwhelming support emerges across miners, businesses, wallet providers and developers. BIP-110 revived a user-activated soft fork pathway, where upgraded nodes would enforce new rules if predefined conditions were met, a route many associate with the 2017 block-size wars.
-
Does BIP-110's failure affect Bitcoin's price?
There is no direct price or flow signal in the rejection. The episode is read as a governance signal: any future proposal that distinguishes between transaction types or leans on user-activated enforcement now inherits BIP-110's precedent and its scars.
WuBlockchain
TheBlock
CoinTelegraph
Glassnode
Crypto Rank News
Crypto News