BIP-110, a Bitcoin soft fork proposal targeting Ordinals inscriptions and arbitrary data embedding, is approaching its mandatory signaling deadline at block 961632 (estimated Aug. 7, 2026) with only 0.31% miner support as of late June 2026. The proposal requires 55% miner signaling rather than Bitcoin's traditional 95% threshold, triggering warnings from developers Adam Back and Jameson Lopp that the activation parameters risk a chain split. The controversy reflects broader governance tension between node operators seeking to restrict data storage and miners benefiting from inscription-related fees.
BIP-110 Mechanics Target Ordinals With One-Year Restriction
BIP-110, authored by Dathon Ohm and formally titled the Reduced Data Temporary Soft fork, proposes a one-year consensus-level restriction on arbitrary data embedding in bitcoin transactions. The rules would target the most common methods used for Ordinals inscriptions, large OP_RETURN payloads, BRC-20 tokens, and certain Taproot constructions repurposed for data storage. The proposal is written as a soft fork, meaning its new rules are stricter than existing ones but backward compatible. Standard monetary transactions using P2PKH, P2WPKH, or Taproot key-path spends would remain fully valid. After 52,416 blocks (roughly one year), the rules expire automatically with no lingering enforcement.
Miner Signaling Reaches 0.31% Against 940 EH/s Network
As of late June 2026, miner signaling sits at 0.31% of total hashrate, around 5 EH/s out of a network total near 940 EH/s. More recently, over the last day, the website bip110.org/monitor shows signaling at 0.00%. Ocean pool has produced the majority of signaling blocks since the first appeared in March 2026. Node adoption for BIP-110-capable software (primarily Bitcoin Knots variants) ranges from an estimated 2% to 8% of listening nodes, though some figures are disputed. Coin Dance Bitcoin Nodes Summary shows Bitcoin Knots nodes stand at around 22.65% of the aggregate 23,795 nodes running Bitcoin.
![BIP-110 node distribution data]()
The activation parameters use a modified BIP9 deployment requiring only 55% miner signaling (1,109 of 2,016 blocks per retarget period) rather than the traditional 95% threshold. If that threshold is not met naturally, a mandatory signaling window beginning around block 961632 (projected Aug. 7, 2026) will reject any block that fails to signal bit 4.
Chain Split Risk Under Minority Enforcement Scenario
If enforcing nodes and sympathetic miners begin rejecting blocks that contain non-compliant transactions, and those blocks carry valid proof-of-work under legacy rules, two competing chains emerge. Enforcing nodes build one chain. Legacy nodes follow another. A minority-enforcement scenario would likely produce a slower, lower-hashrate BIP-110 chain as difficulty adjusts downward. That chain could survive or wither depending on whether exchanges, wallets, and users assign it economic value. The disruption itself, including halted exchange deposits, replay risk, and infrastructure confusion, would occur regardless of which chain ultimately prevails.
Adam Back and Jameson Lopp Warn Against Reckless Activation
Adam Back, the cypherpunk and Blockstream co-founder, stated on X: "It really doesn't work, breaks multiple things, doesn't have tech nor ecosystem consensus. Each is fatal. It has all four. We all hate spam. But this is not the way. You're gonna hurt yourselves." Jameson Lopp published a detailed analysis calling BIP-110 "reckless" and "doomed to fail." His critique covers split risk, potential unspendable UTXOs in rare Taproot edge cases, the proposal's ineffectiveness at actually stopping data storage long-term (embedding can be done in other ways), and the compatibility burden it places on wallets, Miniscript tooling, and pre-signed transactions.
Lopp's blog post explains: "BIP-110's activation relies on a low 55% miner signaling threshold for a User-Activated Soft Fork (UASF). This greatly increases the chances of a 'chain split,' in which there are 2 competing chains vying to be 'the real Bitcoin.' During a chain split scenario you should expect the entire ecosystem to grind to a halt as a result of uncertainty around which fork will win and resulting double-spend risks."
Jimmy Song drew criticism on X after declining to take a position, writing that he lacked sufficient knowledge of the consequences. "I am not 'for' or 'against' BIP110. The reason being that I don't know enough about the system to know the consequences of either path. We'll know a little more when the soft fork resolves one way or the other, but currently, I have little idea of how anything plays out," Song explained. Blockstream's Back responded to Song's post: "There's no technical consensus."
BIP-110 Supporters Cite UASF Precedent and Node Runner Engagement
Supporters argue miners will not sacrifice block rewards over spam fees once the choice becomes real, limiting sustained split risk. Others invoke BIP148, the 2017 UASF that helped force Segwit activation, as precedent for user-activated pressure working despite miner resistance. Pro-BIP-110 accounts interpreted Song's neutrality as audience capture and doing nothing. The Softfork Mechanic wrote to Song: "I respect the humility of course, but this exceeds that and becomes paralysis. Bitcoin is not entirely static. Segwit and Taproot were enormous changes with some horrible consequences. BIP110 is an extremely minor guardrail placed on the latter and it is easy to conclude both that it is necessary given the damage taproot did in practice whilst vanishingly unlikely to have further unforseen consequences itself."
Matteo Pellegrini recently reached out to a large audience on Club Orange, a bitcoin-only social network, sending messages to roughly 17,000 people and asking them to "zap me back if they support BIP110." With a daily active user base of about 500, Pellegrini said he had already received over 100 positive responses. Pellegrini concludes that if this level of engagement mirrors the broader network of node runners, we should "expect 20-25% of nodes supporting BIP110."
Mandatory Signaling Window Arrives in Six Weeks
BIP-110 expires automatically if it activates and no follow-on proposal extends it. The mandatory block window arrives in approximately six weeks. That is enough time for signaling to shift dramatically or for the ecosystem to move firmly in the other direction.
FAQ
What does BIP-110 propose for Bitcoin transactions?
BIP-110 proposes a one-year consensus-level restriction on arbitrary data embedding in bitcoin transactions, targeting Ordinals inscriptions, large OP_RETURN payloads, BRC-20 tokens, and certain Taproot constructions repurposed for data storage. Standard monetary transactions using P2PKH, P2WPKH, or Taproot key-path spends would remain fully valid, and the rules expire automatically after 52,416 blocks.
How much miner support does BIP-110 have as of late June 2026?
As of late June 2026, miner signaling sits at 0.31% of total hashrate, around 5 EH/s out of a network total near 940 EH/s. Ocean pool has produced the majority of signaling blocks since the first appeared in March 2026, and more recently the website bip110.org/monitor shows signaling at 0.00% over the last day.
Why do Adam Back and Jameson Lopp oppose BIP-110?
Adam Back stated the proposal "doesn't work, breaks multiple things, doesn't have tech nor ecosystem consensus," while Jameson Lopp called it "reckless" and "doomed to fail," citing chain split risk, potential unspendable UTXOs in rare Taproot edge cases, ineffectiveness at stopping data storage long-term, and compatibility burdens on wallets and tooling.
