The Proposal That’s Tearing Bitcoin Apart

On July 20, the Bitcoin community found itself in the middle of a firestorm. The culprit: BIP-110, a proposed temporary soft fork that aims to clean up “junk” data — think inscriptions, Ordinals, and Runes — by restricting non-monetary transactions on the network.

On its face, that sounds reasonable. Who doesn’t want less spam and lower fees?

But here’s where it gets ugly.

The 55% Threshold That Changes Everything

Under Bitcoin’s current rules, a protocol upgrade typically requires 95% miner support to activate. That supermajority requirement is intentional — it’s the guardrail that prevents any small group from hijacking the network.

BIP-110 proposes to slash that threshold to 55%.

Let that sink in. A bare majority of miners — not even two-thirds, not even three-quarters — could push through a consensus rule change that renders certain transactions invalid.

I’ve been covering crypto long enough to know that governance fights rarely stay contained. Once you lower the bar, you never raise it back. This isn’t about Ordinals. It’s about who gets to decide what Bitcoin is.

Saylor vs. The Developers: A Clash of Titans

Michael Saylor, the MicroStrategy chairman who’s arguably the most visible corporate Bitcoin advocate on the planet, came out swinging. On July 18, he published a lengthy article titled “110 Reasons BIP-110 Is a Bad Idea”. His argument? The proposal would escalate the battle over junk data into a consensus rule change, invalidating transactions that are currently valid and willing to pay fees.

He’s not alone. Adam Back, co-founder of Blockstream, has also voiced opposition. Jameson Lopp, a prominent developer, warns that BIP-110 could undermine Bitcoin’s neutrality and even freeze existing UTXOs.

And then there’s the “BlockSlop” vulnerability discovered by Dathon Pwn: nodes that enforce BIP-110 might fail to revalidate old blocks, creating a risk of divergence in the blockchain’s history. That’s not a theoretical risk. That’s a chain-split waiting to happen.

Why This Isn’t Just Another Technical Debate

Here’s the thing about Bitcoin governance: it’s never just technical. Every rule change carries political and economic weight.

Supporters of BIP-110 argue it reduces the burden on node operators and combats spam. They point to the explosion of Ordinals and inscriptions as proof that something needs to be done.

But critics — and I tend to agree with them — see a slippery slope. If Bitcoin starts filtering certain types of transactions at the protocol level, who decides what counts as “spam”? Who decides what data is acceptable?

Saylor put it bluntly: the governance risk of BIP-110 outweighs the problem it attempts to solve.

The Miner Reality Check

Here’s the kicker: miner support for BIP-110 is currently near zero. As of mid-July, the proposal remains well below the 55% activation threshold.

So why all the noise?

Because the proposal includes a User Activated Soft Fork (UASF) deadline in early August. That means if miners don’t signal support, users could still enforce the change — a move that would effectively bypass the miners entirely.

That’s not governance. That’s coercion.

What This Means for Your Stack

Let’s cut through the technical jargon. If BIP-110 activates, here’s what’s at stake:

• Transactions that are valid today could become invalid tomorrow.
• The 95% supermajority standard — Bitcoin’s guardrail against capture — could be permanently broken.
• A precedent would be set: if you can change the rules with 55%, what stops the next proposal from dropping it to 40%? Or 30%?

The Bitcoin community is closely monitoring developments ahead of the August deadline. And honestly? I think this is the most consequential governance fight since the Blocksize Wars.

Summary

Bitcoin is at a crossroads. BIP-110 isn’t just a technical fix for spam — it’s a test of whether Bitcoin’s governance can withstand pressure from a vocal minority. The proposal lowers the activation threshold from 95% to 55%, introduces a “BlockSlop” vulnerability that could split the chain, and has drawn fierce opposition from Michael Saylor, Adam Back, and Jameson Lopp. Miner support remains negligible, but the August UASF deadline looms. If this passes, the precedent set could change Bitcoin forever — and not in a good way.

The bull case: Cleaner blocks, lower fees, less spam. The network becomes more efficient and focused on its core monetary function.

The bear case: Governance capture, censorship risk, and a precedent that weakens Bitcoin’s neutrality. Once the threshold drops, it never goes back up.

In my experience, when Saylor, Back, and Lopp all agree on something, it’s worth paying attention. This isn’t FUD. This is a warning.