Bitcoin is currently facing a significant debate regarding its governance, centered around a proposal known as BIP-110. This initiative aims to restrict non-monetary data in Bitcoin transactions, drawing parallels to past conflicts such as the block size war. The central issue remains who has the authority to shape the future of Bitcoin.
BIP-110, formally labeled as the Reduced Data Temporary Softfork, was proposed on December 3, 2025, by developer Dathon Ohm. Its primary objective is to eliminate what proponents term spam from the blockchain. This includes large witness data blobs, oversized OP_RETURN outputs, and certain features of Taproot used to insert arbitrary data into the blockchain.
#What Does BIP-110 Propose and Why Is It Controversial?
The proposal suggests implementing seven temporary regulations that would limit certain data fields in Bitcoin transactions for about one year, affecting around 52,416 blocks. It particularly targets large scriptPubKeys, witness data larger than 256 bytes, and OP_RETURN outputs exceeding 83 bytes.
BIP-110 was intended to be activated through miner signaling, necessitating a version bit 4 with a relatively low 55% threshold for an early lock-in. With an activation window set for August to September 2026, support from miners appeared to be lacking. Although Bitcoin Knots, one node implementation, showed some adoption where BIP-110 was enabled, miner engagement fell woefully short.
#The Support for BIP-110 Fell Flat
Miner signaling for BIP-110 never gained traction, peaking at less than 1% during the evaluation periods. Miner support fluctuated between 0.1% and 0.7%, far below the needed threshold. Notably, resistance emerged from key figures in the Bitcoin community, including notable leaders from major companies. They argued that changes to Bitcoin require a broad consensus, as opposed to decisions taken by a small group.
Critics labeled BIP-110 a threat not just to various transaction types, but also to Bitcoin’s core principle of decentralization. On the other hand, advocates of the proposal claimed that excessive data was burdening the blockchain and increasing fees, posing challenges to node operators.
#What Is the Significance of This Governance Debate?
Interestingly, the market reaction to BIP-110 was muted, showing little price volatility throughout the discussions. The inability of the proposal to gather substantial miner support underlines a consistent narrative that institutional investors find reassuring: Bitcoin is inherently resistant to change. Even proposals that aim for improvement can struggle to gain traction.
The activation threshold in question for BIP-110 was purposely set lower than the traditional 95% threshold used for previous soft forks. Critics viewed this as an effort to ease the consensus process. Nevertheless, the proposal's failure serves as a testament to Bitcoin's consensus mechanism, proving it to be an effective safeguard against unilateral alterations.