- BIP-110, a proposed temporary soft fork to limit non-payment data, has mathematically failed to reach the 55% miner signaling threshold.
- Despite a mandatory signaling window starting at block 961,632, the proposal lacks broad support, with only ~2.6% of miners signaling.
- Prominent figures like Michael Saylor, Adam Back, and Samson Mow opposed the fork, citing censorship and chain-split risks.
- Without replay protection, users face potential loss of real BTC if they move coins during a possible minority chain split.
The Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110, known as BIP-110, has officially failed to gain the necessary miner support to activate. On August 1, Farside UK, an on-chain tracking service, declared the proposal mathematically finished, stating that it could never reach the required 55% threshold. This marks the end of a contentious governance battle that pitted node operators against miners and drew in some of Bitcoin’s most influential figures.
BIP-110, formally called the Reduced Data Temporary Softfork, aimed to restrict non-payment data such as images, text, and token metadata embedded in Bitcoin transactions. Supporters argued that these inscriptions, popularized by Ordinals and Runes, bloated the blockchain and increased costs for node operators. However, the proposal faced fierce opposition from major industry players who viewed it as a dangerous precedent for censorship and chain splits.
What BIP-110 Proposed and Why It Failed
The proposal, authored under the pseudonym Dathon Ohm with contributions from veteran developer Luke Dashjr, introduced seven new consensus rules that would have applied for roughly one year. These rules capped transaction outputs at 34 bytes, limited OP_RETURN data to 83 bytes, and restricted Taproot witness data pushes to 256 bytes. The practical effect would have made inscription techniques impractical, but the activation mechanism required 55% miner signaling—1,109 out of 2,016 blocks—a threshold far below the historical 95% standard for Bitcoin upgrades.
From the start, miner support was negligible. Since May 1, 2026, only about 38 blocks out of more than 9,000 mined signaled support, representing roughly 0.42%. Even after Ocean pool switched to signal by default on July 15, cumulative support barely exceeded 1% in any difficulty period. The four largest mining pools—Foundry Digital, AntPool, ViaBTC, and F2Pool—never signaled, with F2Pool refusing outright. By late July, support hovered around 2.6%, a far cry from the required threshold.
The failure was not just about numbers; it reflected a deep divide in the community. The proposal’s mandatory signaling mechanism, which would have forced nodes to reject blocks without a specific signal starting at block 961,632, was seen as aggressive. This user-activated soft fork (UASF) approach, modeled after the 2017 SegWit activation, lacked the economic alignment that made the 2017 effort successful. Without major exchanges, wallet providers, and institutional players backing the change, miners had no incentive to capitulate.
Opposition from Industry Leaders
Three prominent figures emerged as the most vocal opponents. Michael Saylor, executive chairman of Strategy, published a forceful statement on X on July 11, calling BIP-110 a “consensus change that would invalidate some currently valid, fee-paying transactions” and warning of a dangerous precedent. Adam Back, Blockstream’s co-founder and inventor of Hashcash, echoed similar concerns, stating that Bitcoin “respectfully says no” to the proposal. Samson Mow, CEO of JAN3, added a satirical edge, outlining a “1% attack” scenario and publishing a fictional story about a post-BIP-110 Bitcoin with only 83 users.
On the other side, supporters like Luke Dashjr and trader Fred Krueger argued that non-payment data increases storage costs and moves Bitcoin away from its monetary purpose. However, their arguments failed to sway the broader community. The opposition’s structural objection—that changing consensus rules to distinguish acceptable transaction content sets a dangerous precedent—resonated more widely.
Replay Attack Risks and What Holders Should Know
One of the most critical issues surrounding BIP-110 was the absence of replay protection. If a minority chain had emerged, transactions signed on one chain could be replayed on the other, potentially causing users to lose real BTC. Bitcoin developer Kevin Loaec warned holders against moving coins during a potential split, emphasizing that a signed transaction could be copied and broadcast on the main network, transferring the same amount of BTC to an attacker.
For example, if a user held 1 BTC and received 1 fork coin after a split, selling the fork coin could result in the buyer replaying the transaction on the main chain, effectively stealing the real BTC. This risk is particularly acute for large holders, who could be targeted first. The safest course for non-experts is to avoid moving coins until replay protection is available or the chains are safely separated.
Exchanges and ETF custodians are largely insulated from this risk, as they operate on the main chain and have not signaled support for the minority chain. BlackRock’s IBIT prospectus, for instance, permanently abandons any rights to forked assets. Self-custody holders running Bitcoin Knots software, however, should be aware that their nodes may end up on the minority chain after the mandatory signaling window opens.
What Happens Next
With BIP-110 now mathematically dead, the immediate threat of a chain split has diminished. The minority chain, if it forms at all, is expected to have minimal economic value and will expire automatically after approximately 52,416 blocks (about one year). The underlying debate over non-payment data remains unresolved, with alternative proposals like DOG Mode—which relaxes relay policy rather than changing consensus rules—gaining attention.
In the meantime, Bitcoin’s governance has demonstrated its resilience. The failure of BIP-110 shows that protocol changes require broad multi-constituency alignment, including miners, node operators, and the economic majority. As Michael Saylor noted, “Bitcoin is working as designed.” For now, the network continues to operate normally, and the market has shown no significant reaction, indicating that the outcome was widely anticipated.
Ultimately, the BIP-110 episode serves as a reminder that Bitcoin’s consensus mechanism is robust against contentious changes. While the proposal’s failure may disappoint its supporters, it reinforces the importance of building genuine consensus before attempting to alter the protocol. For ordinary holders, the key takeaway is to remain cautious during any potential fork and to avoid moving coins until the situation is clear.