The BIP 110 initiative aims to limit non-financial data on Bitcoin for a year, but critics, including Saylor and Adam Back, warn it could lead to greater risks than the spam it seeks to eliminate.
By Shaurya Malwa Jul 12, 2026, 5:49 a.m. 3 min readMake preferred on ShareShare this articleCopy linkX (Twitter)LinkedInFacebookEmailMake preferred on SummaryShow- The BIP-110 proposal, which seeks to limit non-financial data on the Bitcoin blockchain, faces a deadline in early August with miner support still below 1%.
- This initiative would impose stricter limits on OP_RETURN and other data-carrying methods for one year, aiming to refocus Bitcoin on transactions, though critics argue it censors valid transactions that pay fees.
The contentious BIP-110 proposal, which aims to eliminate non-financial data from the Bitcoin blockchain, is approaching a critical deadline in early August. However, it has garnered less than 1% support from miners, indicating significant opposition despite the high level of discussion surrounding the issue.
BIP-110, officially known as the Reduced Data Temporary Soft Fork, revolves around the debate on the appropriate use of Bitcoin block space.
Bitcoin transactions can include both monetary transfers and additional data. The OP_RETURN field serves as a designated area for small amounts of data, while data pushes allow for larger data packets within Bitcoin scripts or witness data. Various schemes, including Ordinals and inscriptions, utilize these methods to embed images, text, or token metadata on the blockchain.
The BIP-110 proposal would restrict these data pathways for a year, capping OP_RETURN at its previous small size, limiting arbitrary data chunks over 256 bytes, and placing restrictions on certain script formats primarily used for data storage.
Proponents argue this would keep Bitcoin centered on payments and reduce the burden on nodes, whereas opponents contend it risks transforming a policy dispute into a consensus rule, dictating which transactions are deemed acceptable.
On Saturday, two prominent Bitcoin figures voiced their disapproval. Michael Saylor, founder of Strategy, stated that "there are 110 things more dangerous to Bitcoin than spam," arguing that the proposal shifts a spam issue into a consensus change that could invalidate valid, fee-paying transactions. He emphasized that the precedent it sets poses a more significant risk.
There are 110 things more dangerous to Bitcoin than spam.
— Michael Saylor (@saylor) July 11, 2026
BIP 110 turns a spam dispute into a consensus change that would invalidate some currently valid, fee-paying transactions.
That precedent is the danger. We should save our energy for threats that really matter. $BTC https://t.co/LoSkl9XSo1
Adam Back, co-founder of Blockstream and noted for his hashcash design referenced in the Bitcoin white paper, elaborated on his opposition directed towards proponents of the proposal.
He remarked, "Bitcoin respectfully says no to what you want," suggesting that if they remain unconvinced, their only option is to come together and fork away, but emphasized that "Bitcoin won't be joining it."
Current data reflects the broader sentiment in the market. Unlike traditional changes that depend on extensive miner approval, BIP 110 employs a user-activated soft fork mechanism, requiring a 55% miner signaling threshold as opposed to the standard 95%.
However, support has not even reached this reduced threshold.
Miner signaling has never exceeded about 1% at any point and currently stands at zero, with no major mining pools backing it, according to the BIP 110 signaling monitor.
Among the nodes that maintain and transmit the blockchain, adoption remains in the low single digits, primarily through Bitcoin Knots, an alternative to the predominant Bitcoin Core software.
The deadline is imminent. The current signaling period extends from block 957,600 to 959,615, with a voluntary lock-in deadline at block 961,542 expected in early August.
Nodes running BIP 110 software will subsequently reject any block that fails to signal support, with activation anticipated around September. In practice, a rule enforced by a small fraction of nodes and virtually no miners will not impact Bitcoin for the majority but may lead to the emergence of a minority chain.
Thus, the resistance to change within Bitcoin is not documented in a formal manner, but arises from the collective decisions of numerous independent operators who each must opt-in for consensus.
The underlying concern regarding spam is valid. Blocks have increasingly included non-financial data since the October change, and many observers view this as a shift from Bitcoin as a currency to Bitcoin as a database. However, Bitcoin only evolves when a consensus is reached within the network, and based on current evidence, it appears unlikely that this change will be implemented.