Michael Saylor and Adam Back lead the opposition against BIP-110, a proposal aimed at limiting non-transaction data in Bitcoin, as community debates intensify.
The Bitcoin community is currently embroiled in a heated debate surrounding BIP-110, a proposal that seeks to restrict the inclusion of non-transaction data in the Bitcoin blockchain for a year. Advocates argue that this move is necessary to reduce spam, but critics, including prominent figures like Michael Saylor and Adam Back, have voiced strong opposition.
Data from the BIP-110 Monitor indicates that support for this proposal has consistently remained below 1.5% over the last eight months. Although this suggests limited interest, the mechanism for activation is designed to bypass miners’ influence, with restrictions expected to take effect in early August, albeit not across the entire network.
Opponents of BIP-110 have raised several concerns. Some have pointed to potential flaws in the activation mechanism that could lead to chain divergence, while others have demonstrated methods to bypass the proposed restrictions altogether. For instance, a developer managed to embed an image in the blockchain despite the limitations proposed by BIP-110.
Overview of BIP-110's Proposed Restrictions
Initially submitted by a developer using the pseudonym Dathon Ohm in October 2025, BIP-110 aims to formalize the process for significant code changes in Bitcoin. The proposal introduces seven specific restrictions for a year, including limitations on the size of recipient addresses, data chunks, and prohibitions on certain script elements.
- New recipient addresses cannot exceed 34 bytes, with an exception for OP_RETURN addresses;
- Data chunks and witness elements are limited to 256 bytes;
- Prohibition of the Taproot annex;
- Restriction on Tapscript with OP_SUCCESSx opcodes;
- Prohibition on spending outputs with undefined witness versions;
- Control block size must not exceed 257 bytes;
- Executable OP_IF and OP_NOTIF are banned within Tapscript.
Coins held in addresses created before these rules will not be affected, alleviating concerns about confiscating existing funds. However, transactions structured under older rules could become inaccessible if sent during the year of restrictions.
Activation Mechanism and Controversy
BIP-110 employs a modified activation method that reduces reliance on miner consensus, with a lower activation threshold of 55% compared to the standard 95%. This has sparked controversy, as critics argue it undermines the traditional decision-making processes within the community. Saylor has pointed out that the lack of a "failed" status for the proposal could lead to forced coordination among node operators.
Support for BIP-110 has been minimal, with the highest recorded support being only 1.2% during a recent period. Major mining pools have not publicly supported the initiative, with only a few blocks signaling approval, primarily from less influential miners.
Critique and Legal Concerns
Critics like Back and Mow have raised issues regarding the implications of BIP-110 on Bitcoin’s reputation as a store of value, arguing that the proposal could lead to a slippery slope of governance issues. There are also concerns about the legal ramifications for node operators who might inadvertently store illegal content if restrictions are not adequately enforced.
Moreover, a significant critique of BIP-110 focuses on its activation mechanism, which some assert could lead to chain splits and fragmentation within the network. The debate continues to evolve, with various stakeholders expressing their views on social media and in the community forums.
As the expected activation date approaches, the Bitcoin community remains divided over the future of BIP-110, with its ultimate fate still uncertain amidst ongoing discussions.
