BIP-110 has received almost no backing from miners, but its user-activated approach means the proposal is still advancing toward its planned activation timeline and could remain relevant afterward.
Bitcoin is heading toward an unusual moment this weekend, as a small group of nodes prepares to reject blocks created by the vast majority of the network’s miners.
The Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP)-110, a controversial initiative aimed at temporarily reducing the amount of non-transaction data that can be stored on Bitcoin’s blockchain, is nearing its scheduled mandatory signaling phase, expected around Aug. 9. If successful, enforcement would begin at block 965,664, which is estimated to arrive about a month later.
The proposal’s normal 55% miner signaling threshold is already considered out of reach.
Bitcoin nodes are computers that independently verify transactions and blocks against the network’s consensus rules, rejecting anything they consider invalid. Miners, meanwhile, create new blocks, but nodes ultimately decide whether those blocks are accepted.
By conventional measures, BIP-110 appears unlikely to succeed, with mining pool support below 3% and only a short period remaining before the signaling stage begins.
If BIP-110 were decided by a vote, the proposal would appear to have suffered a decisive defeat.
However, supporters argue that Bitcoin’s decentralized design allows anyone to run modified software and enforce the rules they believe should define the network.
Dathon Ohm, the pseudonymous author of BIP-110, described the proposal as a movement led by ordinary Bitcoin users pushing back against powerful institutions that he believes are attempting to influence Bitcoin’s direction.
His recent post on X focused on practical instructions for miners who want to enforce BIP-110. He recommended upgrading to Bitcoin Knots, the primary software implementation supporting the proposal, and advised against running Bitcoin Core, the network’s most widely used software client, claiming it would become unreliable under the new rules.
BIP-110 seeks to temporarily strengthen Bitcoin’s consensus restrictions by limiting inscription-related activities such as Ordinals and Runes. Supporters argue that these uses consume valuable block space, increase costs for operating nodes, and distract from Bitcoin’s primary function as decentralized digital money.
Critics say the proposal’s minimal miner support proves it is effectively finished. Supporters counter that miners are not the ultimate authority in Bitcoin governance — they only create blocks, while nodes determine whether those blocks follow the network’s rules.
This argument reflects the concept behind user-activated soft forks (UASFs), which allow node operators to enforce new consensus rules at a predetermined block height regardless of miner approval.
The same principle played a role in the 2017 SegWit activation, when users advanced the upgrade despite resistance from some miners. SegWit changed Bitcoin’s transaction structure by separating signature data, a development that later enabled innovations such as Ordinals and Runes, which BIP-110 now aims to restrict.
Once Bitcoin reaches block 961,632, nodes running BIP-110 software will begin rejecting blocks that fail to meet the proposal’s requirements, even if the broader network accepts them.
If some miners follow the new rules while others continue under the existing system, Bitcoin could potentially split into competing chains. The BIP-110 chain would likely begin with only a small share of the network’s total hash power.
Whether that minority chain can survive remains unclear, though many analysts consider a successful split unlikely. Some bitcoin-focused exchanges are preparing for possible disruption by temporarily pausing deposits and withdrawals around the activation period. These measures highlight that Bitcoin consensus depends not only on miners or nodes separately, but also on coordination among exchanges, wallets, developers, and users.
The proposal has also struggled to gain support among prominent Bitcoin advocates outside the mining sector, with figures such as Michael Saylor and Adam Back voicing opposition.
Critics argue that Bitcoin’s security comes from the difficulty of changing its consensus rules and believe block space should ultimately be allocated through market demand and transaction fees.
Supporters of BIP-110 argue the opposite, saying the proposal does not rewrite Bitcoin but instead protects its original purpose. They believe users have the authority and responsibility to reject software changes that alter the network’s intended behavior.
Regardless of the outcome, BIP-110’s impact may extend beyond the current debate over Ordinals, Runes, and block space.
The proposal’s true test will come through network activity rather than online discussions. If BIP-110 nodes reject the dominant blockchain, the next question will be whether enough miners, exchanges, and users choose to support the alternative chain and allow it to continue.
