Quick Summary
- Foundry Digital — the world’s largest Bitcoin mining pool, controlling roughly a third of network hashrate — sent a vote to its miners on July 17 asking whether to signal for BIP-110
- Current miner support for BIP-110: effectively 0%. Only 0.42% of blocks since May have signaled support
- Luke Dashjr, BIP-110’s creator, refuses to withdraw the proposal, declaring it’s "too late to cancel"
- Michael Saylor and Adam Back both publicly declared war on the proposal on July 11
- The mandatory signaling deadline hits around August 7 — and nobody is ready
What Happened
On Friday, July 17, Foundry Digital — a Rochester, NY-based mining pool that controls about one-third of Bitcoin’s total hashrate — sent an email to its mining clients.
The subject line: "BIP-110 Vote."
The email was straightforward: Foundry is letting miners vote with their hashrate on whether the pool should signal "Yes" or "No" for BIP-110. Default position is "No." Only accounts that explicitly vote "Yes" will shift Foundry’s signal. Non-responders count as "No."
"As miners, it’s important for you to have a voice and participate in the governance of the network," Foundry wrote.
But here is the problem. Nobody wants BIP-110.
The Numbers Don’t Lie
The proposal has been floating around since December 2025. In seven months, BIP-110 has never topped 0.79% miner support. In the current difficulty period, that number sits at exactly zero.
Only 38 blocks out of more than 9,000 mined since May have signaled for BIP-110 — roughly 0.42% of total hashrate. The proposal needs 55% to activate, which is already far below Bitcoin’s historical 95% standard for soft forks.
Jason Hughes, VP of Development & Engineering at Ocean Mining, published a detailed analysis the same day Foundry’s vote went out. His conclusion: "I give BIP-110’s success less than a 5% chance of actually succeeding. And I consider that generous."
The Mystery Blocks
On July 9, 17 new signaling blocks for BIP-110 suddenly appeared — the first signaling activity in months. Automatic alerts triggered across the network. Before this, only one block had signaled for BIP-110 since March.
Who mined those 17 blocks? Nobody knows. The mystery miner has not come forward.
Hughes suspects the blocks were mined using rented hashrate — far cheaper than actually running a BIP-110-compatible node long-term. A rounding error in the context of 9,000+ blocks, but the timing (weeks before the August deadline) suggests someone is trying to make the proposal look less dead than it actually is.
Saylor and Back Declare War
The two most powerful figures in Bitcoin corporate adoption aren’t waiting for votes.
Michael Saylor, executive chairman of Strategy, posted on X on July 11: "There are 110 things more dangerous to Bitcoin than spam. BIP-110 turns a spam dispute into a consensus change that would invalidate some currently valid, fee-paying transactions. That precedent is the danger."
Adam Back, Blockstream co-founder, followed within hours: Bitcoin "respectfully says no to what you want." His message to supporters: fork away — but "bitcoin won’t be joining it."
Luke Dashjr, the veteran developer behind BIP-110, responded the same day: "It’s too late to cancel BIP-110." He has framed the proposal’s failure as existential: "If BIP-110 fails, Bitcoin fails with it."
Why This Matters for Bitcoin
This is not a technical debate anymore. It is a governance crisis.
Bitcoin’s entire value proposition rests on one thing: predictability. The rules don’t change because someone powerful wants them to. The 21 million cap doesn’t get adjusted by a CEO who thinks inflation is better. And transactions don’t get invalidated because a developer thinks they’re "spam."
BIP-110 would set a precedent: that a small, determined group can force a consensus change that invalidates valid, fee-paying transactions, simply because they disagree with how people use the network. Saylor is right — that precedent is far more dangerous than Ordinals inscriptions.
The August 7 deadline at block 961,632 is approaching. Foundry’s vote is an admission that the mining industry doesn’t support the proposal. And now the question isn’t whether BIP-110 will activate — we know it won’t. The question is whether the August deadline triggers an ugly minority fork, or the proposal dies quietly like every other governance fight that couldn’t get the numbers.
What Beginners Should Do Next
- Understand how Bitcoin governance works. Mining pools signal support for protocol changes. No signal = no change. This is how decentralization protects you — but it only works if you are paying attention.
- Learn why the 21 million cap matters. Debates about changing it, or invalidating transactions through soft forks, are debates about whether Bitcoin remains predictable.
- Self-custody is your protection. If a minority fork happens, exchanges will choose sides. The only way to make your own choice is to hold your own keys. Learn how Bitcoin wallets work.
- Ignore the panic. BIP-110 has <5% chance of succeeding per mining insiders. The noise is louder than the signal, but the data is clear.
FAQ
What is BIP-110? A proposed soft fork that would change Bitcoin’s consensus rules to make Ordinals inscriptions and other non-financial data much harder to include in blocks. Read our previous coverage of BIP-110 for a full explainer.
Who is Foundry? Foundry Digital is the world’s largest Bitcoin mining pool, controlling roughly 30% of the network’s hashrate. They are headquartered in Rochester, NY, and are owned by Digital Currency Group.
Can BIP-110 still pass? Not with current numbers. It needs 55% miner signaling. It has never topped 0.79%. The mathematical window has effectively closed.
What happens at the August 7 deadline? The mandatory signaling deadline at block 961,632. If the proposal doesn’t meet its threshold by then, it technically fails — but there are concerns about minority enforcement leading to a chain split.
Is this the same as changing the 21 million cap? No, but it happened the same week. Both debates reveal the same tension: who gets to decide what Bitcoin is for?
Should I be worried about my Bitcoin? No — as long as you hold your own keys. Exchanges and custodians may need to make choices in a fork scenario. Self-custody means you can wait and decide. Compare Bitcoin ETFs with real Bitcoin self-custody to understand the difference.
Final Thoughts
Foundry’s vote is not a sign of a healthy governance debate. It is a signal that BIP-110 is so unpopular that the largest mining pool had to actively ask its clients for permission to even consider supporting it.
The proposal has zero percent miner support. The most powerful figures in Bitcoin are against it. The only person who wants it is its creator, who has refused to back down.
This is not democracy in action. This is a developer holding the network hostage to a proposal that seven months of signaling data says nobody wants.
Here is the question you need to answer for yourself: If a single developer can refuse to cancel a proposal with zero percent support, and push it toward a mandatory deadline that could split the network — what else could be next?
And more importantly: Are you holding your own keys when it happens?
This article is for education only and is not financial advice. Use coupon code LOVEISBITCOIN at loveisbitcoin.com/bull.
Foundry Puts BIP-110 to a Vote — But 0% of Miners Want It. Luke Dashjr Refuses to Cancel.
