Just a week ago, I wrote about the explosive debate surrounding BIP-110 — the proposal to restrict non-financial data on Bitcoin’s blockchain and effectively kill Ordinals and Runes. The battle lines were drawn: Adam Back versus the grassroots, establishment developers versus the “Bitcoin Fundamentalists,” and a community tearing itself apart over what Bitcoin should actually be.

Fast forward to the final days of June, and the picture has become both clearer and more alarming.

The Numbers Have Gotten Worse

Let’s start with the raw data. As of late June, BIP-110 has mustered roughly 0.31% of total hashrate support. That’s about 5 EH/s out of a total network hashrate of approximately 940 EH/s. Major mining pools remain conspicuously absent. Node support sits at a measly 2-3% . The first and only block signaling support for BIP-110 was mined by Ocean pool back in March 2026. Since then? Radio silence. More recently, the monitoring website bip110.org has shown signaling at 0.00% .

The proposal needs 55% of miners to signal support within a single difficulty adjustment period of 2,016 blocks. It currently has 0.31%. The math doesn’t lie.

But Here’s Where It Gets Dangerous

The controversy escalated dramatically this past week — and this is the update you need to pay attention to. On June 28, BIP-110 supporter Fred Krueger took to X to assure everyone that Bitcoin’s monetary properties would remain untouched. His reassurance backfired spectacularly.

Crypto investment advisor Farside Investors publicly challenged Krueger’s assessment. Their warning is devastating: BIP-110 would ban several Taproot scripting features, including the OP_IF opcode used by Miniscript. If activated, wallets that support Miniscript will still let users generate and send funds to addresses built on the now-banned scripts. Those transactions will look valid. But the BTC sent to them will become permanently unspendable because the required spending conditions will no longer apply under the new consensus rules.

Here’s the cruel irony: the latest version of Bitcoin Knots — one of the node implementations supporting BIP-110 — could itself create these incompatible addresses.

But wait, it gets worse. Farside further pointed out that BIP-110 would also ban the creation of new pay-to-public-key (P2PK) outputs. This script type was used extensively during Bitcoin’s early days and is currently holding more than 1.7 million BTC. While spending existing P2PK outputs would still be allowed, the proposal could temporarily freeze funds or expose users to theft risks.

The Developer Who Told Everyone to Stop

Jon Atack, a long-time Bitcoin Core contributor and BIP maintainer, has issued a stark warning that should make every Bitcoin holder sit up straight: avoid Bitcoin transfers during the second week of August. Atack stated he is running both Core and Knots version 110 simultaneously for monitoring and has isolated his Bitcoin holdings. He also commented on the increasingly polarized debates, noting that “independent thinking and choosing one’s own priorities require greater courage.”

When a core developer tells you to stop using the network, you pay attention.

The “Firing the Miners” Confusion

The drama reached peak absurdity in mid-June when viral claims spread that Bitcoin would “fire the miners” in August 2026. Adam Back was forced to publicly debunk the rumor, explaining that developer Luke Dashjr is simply preparing a new coin that would run on different mining rules — not modifying Bitcoin itself. The confusion stems entirely from the heated BIP-110 debate. Back has been unequivocal: BIP-110 is “technically flawed,” and forcing its activation could split the network into a minority fork. He’s dismissed comparisons to SegWit, arguing that BIP-110 lacks the broad ecosystem support that made the 2017 activation possible after years of coordination.

What This Means for You

The near-certain failure of BIP-110 carries implications beyond the technical debate. For market participants, the immediate takeaway is that Ordinals, Runes, and similar protocols aren’t going anywhere. The economic incentives for miners to process these transactions remain intact, and the political will to restrict them doesn’t exist at the hashrate level where it matters.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth I keep coming back to: Bitcoin’s governance is broken. We’re watching a small group of people fight over who gets to decide its future, while the network itself limps toward a potential August crisis. The BIP-110 battle has exposed fractures that won’t heal anytime soon. Even if the proposal fails — and all signs point to that outcome — the damage to trust and community cohesion is already done.

Summary

The BIP-110 proposal is teetering on the brink of failure with only 0.31% miner support as of late June. Critics have intensified the debate by warning that the upgrade could break wallets, freeze funds, and render over 1.7 million BTC unspendable. A Bitcoin Core contributor has advised users to avoid transacting during the second week of August. Viral rumors about “firing the miners” have been debunked by Adam Back, who continues to warn of a potential minority fork. While BIP-110 appears destined for defeat, the governance battle has exposed deep divisions in the Bitcoin community that will persist regardless of the outcome.

Bullish Scenario: The proposal fails completely, as miner support overwhelmingly suggests. Bitcoin remains a neutral, permissionless network, and the fee market continues to grow with inscription activity. The network avoids a contentious split, and the drama fades into memory.

Bearish Scenario: A minority faction pushes forward regardless of miner support, creating a chain split and causing chaos. Wallets break, funds are frozen, and the network’s reputation suffers significant damage. The infighting distracts from adoption and weakens Bitcoin’s position as a stable store of value. The August activation date becomes a moment of crisis rather than resolution.