Quick Summary
- BIP-110 proposes a 1-year temporary soft fork to restrict "spam" data (Ordinals/inscriptions) on the Bitcoin blockchain
- Michael Saylor published "110 Reasons BIP 110 Is a Bad Idea" — a 3,700+ word X thread calling it a dangerous precedent for censorship
- Luke Dashjr declares it’s "too late to cancel BIP 110" and warns "if BIP 110 fails, Bitcoin fails with it"
- 17 mysterious blocks suddenly signaled support on July 9 — origin unknown, no major pool claimed them
- The mandatory signaling window opens around August 7 — and if it doesn’t get enough support, the chain could split
What Happened
Bitcoin is having a fight. Not the usual "number go up / number go down" drama. An actual, technical, ideological civil war over who gets to decide what "valid" transactions look like.
It’s called BIP-110, and it’s the most divisive proposal to hit Bitcoin since the blocksize war.
The proposal is simple on paper: temporarily restrict certain types of transaction data — inscriptions, large data pushes, OP_RETURN abuse — for one year. A soft fork. A cleanup. A way to protect the network from "spam."
But here’s the problem: Bitcoin cannot read intent.
The same consensus rules that would block an Ordinals inscription could also block a timestamped document, a notarized deed, an encrypted message, or a legitimate data-sealing transaction that someone actually cares about.
The proposal lowers the miner signaling threshold from the traditional 95% to 55% — meaning a simple majority of miners could activate it without broad community consensus. And there’s a mandatory signaling window built in for August 7, 2026 that forces the issue regardless.
17 Mysterious Blocks
On July 9, Farside Investors’ automated monitoring systems detected something strange: 17 blocks in one signaling period that suddenly supported BIP-110.
No major mining pool claimed them. No public announcement. Just blocks, showing up, saying "yes" to a controversial consensus change.
Who sent them? A rogue miner? A coordinated silent push by supporters? A stress test? Nobody knows. And that’s kind of the point — when the network’s biggest fights happen in the dark, normal people are the last to know.
Saylor vs. Dashjr: The Battle Lines
Michael Saylor — the man whose company holds 843,775 Bitcoin worth $54 billion — went nuclear on July 18-19 with an epic 3,700-word X thread titled "110 Reasons BIP 110 Is a Bad Idea."
His money quote: "Bitcoin does not need guardians of purity. It needs guardians of neutrality."
Saylor argues that once you let the network police what people do with their transactions, you’ve created a governing body Bitcoin was specifically designed to avoid. The precedent, he says, is "more dangerous than spam itself."
Luke Dashjr — the Bitcoin Core developer who’s been fighting this war for years — isn’t backing down. His response: "It’s too late to cancel BIP 110." And the even more stark: "If BIP 110 fails, Bitcoin fails with it."
Dashjr’s Ocean mining pool is the only known pool signaling support. He’s been running Bitcoin Knots, which enforces these restrictions, since May. He clearly believes the future of Bitcoin is at stake if "spam" isn’t curtailed.
Adam Back — Blockstream CEO and one of Bitcoin’s earliest cypherpunks — is in Saylor’s camp. He warned the proposal "will self-fork off around August 7th" and called it "technically flawed."
The Numbers Don’t Lie
Right now, only about 0.31% hashrate (5 EH/s of 940 EH/s total) is signaling for BIP-110. Only ~2% of nodes support it. No major mining pool — Foundry, Antpool, F2Pool, ViaBTC, Binance Pool — has signaled support.
That’s not a groundswell. That’s a fringe group pushing a consensus change through a dangerously low threshold.
But the mandatory signaling window is coming. And that’s why this matters right now.
Why This Matters for Bitcoin
This is the first real test of whether Bitcoin can resist the temptation to "clean itself up."
Every time someone says "we should just block obviously bad transactions," they’re asking the network to become a judge. And judges need a court. And courts need enforcers. And enforcers need someone to tell them what to enforce.
You don’t fix a permissionless network by adding permission.
The Ordinals debate is real — fees spiked, blocks filled up, some people hate the JPEGs. But the solution isn’t to change the consensus rules to ban a type of data. The solution is what Bitcoin already does: let the market decide what’s worth paying for, and let miners confirm whatever pays the most.
The Love Is Bitcoin Takeaway
Here’s the uncomfortable truth that both sides don’t want to admit: BIP-110 is not about spam. It’s about control.
The "anti-spam" camp wants to preserve Bitcoin as "sound money" — pristine, clean, just transactions. They see Ordinals as graffiti on a cathedral.
The "neutrality" camp wants to preserve Bitcoin as a censorship-resistant network — where nobody, not even well-intentioned developers, gets to decide what "valid" data looks like.
Both sides have a point. But only one side is building a precedent that can be used against you later.
If BIP-110 passes, what’s next? Privacy tools that look "suspicious"? CoinJoins that bloat blocks? Lightning channels that leave too many fingerprints? The slope is real, and it’s greased with good intentions.
This is exactly why self-custody matters — not just of your coins, but of your right to transact. When the network starts gatekeeping, the people who control the nodes control the rules. And the people who control the rules can change them.
Get your Bitcoin off exchanges. Learn what a node does. Understand what a soft fork means for your coins. Because if you’re not paying attention to fights like BIP-110, you’re trusting other people to decide your financial future.
And we all know how that story ends.
What Beginners Should Do Next
- Learn the difference between a soft fork and a hard fork — a soft fork can make previously valid transactions invalid
- Understand that "spam" on Bitcoin is subjective — one person’s spam is another person’s timestamped deed
- Read about the blocksize war — this is very similar territory and that fight shaped Bitcoin for a decade
- Run your own node — it’s the only way to be sure which version of the rules you’re following
- Hold your own keys: ✅ Learn how Bitcoin wallets work
FAQ
What is BIP-110?
BIP-110 is a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal that would temporarily restrict certain types of transaction data — specifically large data pushes, inscriptions, and OP_RETURN abuse — for one year through a soft fork.
Would BIP-110 ban Ordinals?
That’s the intention. The proposal targets the technical mechanism Ordinals use to inscribe data. Existing inscriptions would be grandfathered, but new ones would become invalid under the new rules.
What’s the 55% threshold?
BIP-110 proposes a 55% miner signaling threshold instead of the traditional 95%. This means a simple majority of miners could activate the change without broad community consensus.
Is BIP-110 already active?
No. But there’s a mandatory signaling window around August 7, 2026. If enough blocks signal support before then, the change activates in September.
Who supports it?
Luke Dashjr and pseudonymous developer Dathon Ohm are the main proponents. Ocean mining pool is the only known pool signaling support. Node support is around 2%.
Who opposes it?
Michael Saylor (Strategy), Adam Back (Blockstream), and the "guardians of neutrality" camp who argue it creates a dangerous censorship precedent.
Does this affect my Bitcoin?
If you hold your own keys, your coins exist on whatever chain you choose to follow. But if BIP-110 activates and you’re on a node enforcing the new rules, some previously valid transactions could appear invalid. This is why self-custody and running your own node matter.
Is this financial advice?
No. This is education about a protocol-level debate that could affect how Bitcoin works. Talk to a financial professional about your specific situation.
Final Thoughts
BIP-110 is not just a technical proposal. It’s a test of whether Bitcoin can resist the urge to become what it was designed to replace.
The guardians of purity want a clean ledger. The guardians of neutrality want a permissionless network. Both want what’s best for Bitcoin. But only one side’s victory leads to a network that can’t be turned against you.
So here’s the question that keeps me up at night: If a well-intentioned majority can decide what transactions are "spam" today, what stops a well-intentioned majority from deciding your transactions are "illegal" tomorrow?
— The Love Is Bitcoin Team
⚡ Save on your next Bitcoin purchase: use coupon code LOVEISBITCOIN at loveisbitcoin.com/bull
This article is for education only and is not financial advice.
Bitcoin’s First Censorship Gate Is Here — And It’s Dividing Us
