Quick Summary
- BIP-110, a proposal to kill Ordinals via a temporary fork, has less than 1% miner support and 2% node support — yet its creator refuses to withdraw it
- On July 9, 2026, 17 mysterious blocks suddenly signaled for BIP-110 after months of silence — nobody knows who mined them
- Luke Dashjr: "It’s too late to cancel BIP110" and "If BIP110 fails, Bitcoin fails with it"
- Michael Saylor: "There are 110 things more dangerous to Bitcoin than spam"
- Adam Back (Blockstream CEO): Called it a "quest to police other people" incompatible with Bitcoin’s cypherpunk ethos
- Critics warn the proposal could freeze over 1.7 million BTC and break wallet compatibility
- The mandatory signaling window opens in early August — we’re weeks away from a potential network split
- Meanwhile, Eli Ben-Sasson (StarkWare CEO) threw a grenade into the debate, arguing the 21M supply cap "doesn’t make sense" and proposing 4% annual issuance instead
What Happened
Here’s the short version of a very long, very ugly fight.
BIP-110 was proposed in December 2025. Its goal: stop Ordinals inscriptions, Runes, and other "non-monetary" data from clogging Bitcoin blocks. The mechanism: a temporary soft fork that would treat certain data-heavy transactions as invalid.
For six months, it had basically zero support. Then in March 2026, Ocean pool mined the very first signaling block. Everyone thought that was the end of it.
It wasn’t.
On July 9, Farside Investors detected 17 new signaling blocks — the first since March. Automatic network alerts went off. Bitcoin was trading near $62,821 at the time.
Seventeen blocks out of the 1,109 needed for activation. Statistically meaningless. But here’s the creepy part: nobody knows who mined them.
After months of dead silence, someone decided to start signaling. The timing, just weeks before the August forced-activation window, suggests they’re positioning for the next phase of this fight. But they haven’t come forward.
Meanwhile, Luke Dashjr — one of Bitcoin’s longest-serving core developers and the proposal’s primary backer — made his position brutally clear:
"It’s too late to cancel BIP110."
"If BIP110 fails, Bitcoin fails with it."
Think about that for a second. A proposal with less than 0.5% cumulative hashpower support. A proposal that 99% of the network has implicitly rejected. And the man behind it says it cannot be stopped and its failure means Bitcoin’s failure.
Michael Saylor threw a counter-punch on July 8:
"There are 110 things more dangerous to Bitcoin than spam."
He pointed out that average transaction fees are just $0.30 — hardly a spam crisis. He also warned BIP-110 could "invalidate ordinary transactions."
Adam Back went further, calling the proposal a "quest to police other people" and arguing it’s fundamentally incompatible with Bitcoin’s cypherpunk ethos.
And then there’s the part nobody’s talking about enough:
Critics warn this upgrade could freeze over 1.7 million BTC and break wallets.
That’s not a technical debate anymore. That’s a threat to every single person holding Bitcoin.
Why This Matters for Bitcoin
This is not a boring developer argument. This is the most consequential governance fight since the Blocksize Wars of 2015-2017.
Back then, the question was: should Bitcoin raise the block size limit to handle more transactions? The community split. Bitcoin Cash was born. And Bitcoin survived.
This time, the question is more fundamental: who gets to decide what a valid Bitcoin transaction is?
If BIP-110 passes — even temporarily — it sets a precedent that a small group of developers can redefine what "spending Bitcoin" means. A one-year limit sounds harmless until you realize that in one year, the same mechanism could be used for something far more dangerous than blocking JPEGs.
And the 21 million cap is no longer sacred either.
Eli Ben-Sasson — CEO of StarkWare and one of the cryptographers behind Zcash — just argued that the 21 million supply cap "doesn’t make sense" because users lose private keys. His proposal: replace it with a maximum issuance rate of 4% per year.
Hardware wallet maker Ledger estimates that 4 million BTC are already permanently inaccessible — nearly a fifth of everything that will ever exist. Ben-Sasson used that number to argue the effective supply is already closer to 16-17 million, and the cap needs to be revisited.
The Bitcoin community rejected his idea immediately. The 21 million limit is the network’s social contract — break it and you break Bitcoin. But the fact that a cryptographer of his stature would even suggest it tells you how fractured the discourse has become.
BIP-110 has become a proxy war for a much bigger question: what IS Bitcoin?
Is it a strictly monetary network where the only valid transactions are sending value? Or is it a permissionless ledger where anyone can use the blockspace however they want, as long as they pay the fee?
The Love Is Bitcoin Takeaway
Here’s what this means for you, the person actually holding Bitcoin:
First, this fight exposes the tension between "digital gold" and "unstoppable network."
Bitcoin’s value comes from its rules. The 21 million cap. The difficulty adjustment. The consensus mechanism. But those rules only matter if they’re enforced fairly. If a vocal minority can push through a change with 0.3% support — even a "temporary" one — what happens the next time?
Second, the freezing risk is real.
1.7 million BTC potentially affected. That’s not an Ordinals problem. That’s a "your savings might not move when you need them to" problem. The critics aren’t Ordinals fans — they’re people worried about what happens when the August window opens and nodes start rejecting transactions they don’t agree with.
Third, this is why self-custody isn’t enough if you can’t verify.
Running your own node means you choose which rules to enforce. If BIP-110 activates and your node follows the new consensus, your transactions are subject to whatever validation rules the fork introduces. Self-custody + your own node = you can choose to reject the fork. But most people don’t run nodes.
This whole mess proves one thing: Bitcoin’s governance is messy because it’s permissionless. There’s no CEO to fire, no board to overrule, no court to appeal to. When developers disagree and miners can’t reach consensus, the network either forks — or someone has to blink.
The question is who blinks first: Luke Dashjr and his 0.3% hashpower, or the 99.7% of the network that has rejected BIP-110.
What Beginners Should Do Next
If you hold Bitcoin on an exchange, now is a good time to understand what happens during a fork. Exchanges usually handle forks by temporarily pausing withdrawals. If you want to be in control of your coins during this period, learn self-custody — not because a fork is guaranteed, but because August is approaching and uncertainty is high.
If you use a software or hardware wallet, make sure your software is up to date. Wallet providers will issue updates if BIP-110 threatens compatibility. Running outdated software during a governance crisis is how people lose access to their funds.
If you run a node, research BIP-110 for yourself. Don’t trust Dashjr, don’t trust Saylor, don’t trust me. Read the actual proposal, understand what it would change, and decide which consensus rules you want to enforce.
Understand the "temporary fork" trade-off. A one-year limit on BIP-110 sounds safe — but any fork that redefines valid transactions sets a precedent. Once that door opens, it doesn’t close cleanly.
Most importantly: don’t panic. Bitcoin has survived worse. The Blocksize Wars. Exchange collapses A governance debate with 0.3% support is not an existential threat to the network — but it IS a reminder that being your own bank means paying attention.
FAQ
What is BIP-110?
BIP-110 is a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal that would temporarily fork the network to treat Ordinals inscriptions, Runes, and similar "non-monetary" data as invalid transactions. It has a proposed one-year time limit.
Can BIP-110 freeze my Bitcoin?
Critics warn that the proposal could freeze over 1.7 million BTC by invalidating transactions that the fork considers non-monetary — including legitimate transactions that happen to include data in their outputs. The risk is real enough that multiple developers have publicly opposed the proposal.
Who supports BIP-110?
Luke Dashjr (Ocean mining pool founder and long-time Bitcoin Core contributor) and pseudonymous developer "Dathon Ohm" are the primary proponents. As of July 2026, less than 1% of miners and roughly 2% of nodes signal support.
Who opposes BIP-110?
Michael Saylor (Strategy), Adam Back (Blockstream CEO), and a significant portion of the Bitcoin developer community have publicly opposed it. Saylor called it one of "110 things more dangerous to Bitcoin than spam."
When could BIP-110 activate?
The mandatory signaling window opens in early August 2026. If 55% of blocks signal support during a two-week period, the fork could activate. Current support is below 1%.
Could BIP-110 cause a chain split?
Supporters say no — it’s a "temporary fork" with a one-year sunset. Critics say any fork that redefines valid transactions risks splitting the chain if a significant minority refuses to adopt the new rules.
Does this affect the 21 million supply cap?
Not directly. But the debate has opened the door to broader conversations about Bitcoin’s monetary policy. StarkWare CEO Eli Ben-Sasson argued the 21M cap "doesn’t make sense" due to lost coins and proposed 4% annual issuance — an idea the community overwhelmingly rejected.
Is this like the Blocksize Wars?
The stakes are similar — a fundamental disagreement about what Bitcoin should be — but the mechanism is different. The Blocksize Wars were about scalability. BIP-110 is about whether non-monetary uses of Bitcoin are valid at all.
Should I sell my Bitcoin because of BIP-110?
No. This article is for education only and is not financial advice. Bitcoin has survived governance disputes before. The best thing you can do is educate yourself, keep your software updated, and consider running your own node so you control which rules to enforce.
Final Thoughts
Bitcoin’s governance is messy because it’s supposed to be. There’s no king, no board, no central authority that can say "this is the way." When 99% of the network says no and the 1% refuses to back down, that’s not a bug — it’s the feature.
But it’s also a stress test. If BIP-110 has 0.3% support and its creator still won’t withdraw it, what does that say about the proposal’s integrity? And if 99% of the network can’t stop a proposal with 0.3% support, what does that say about Bitcoin’s governance?
The August deadline is coming. The mystery miners haven’t come forward. And somewhere, Luke Dashjr is still coding.
Use coupon code LOVEISBITCOIN at loveisbitcoin.com/bull to get a discount on Bitcoin self-custody products.
This article is for education only and is not financial advice.
BIP-110 Could FREEZE Your Bitcoin — Luke Dashjr Refuses to Kill It
