Bitcoin BIP-110 turns mandatory signal, and miners 'support rating remains below 3%

Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110) enters the mandatory signaling phase, but miners 'support rating is less than 3%

Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110) has entered the mandatory signaling phase, but miners have only sent the required signals in a small number of recent blocks-raising doubts about whether this controversial rule set can gain enough support to maintain a chain of competition.

According to BIP-110 monitoring data, at the block height of 961,632 reached on Saturday, miners only sent support signals to 51 of the previous 2,016 blocks, accounting for 2.53%, which is well below the mechanism's expected early activation threshold of 55%. Although nodes executing BIP-110 began to reject blocks without version bit 4 set, standard Bitcoin nodes continued to accept all blocks with or without signaling-which could cause potential splits between executing and non-executing nodes.

Key Points

BIP-110 enters the mandatory signal execution window at a block height of 961,632, and the execution node rejects blocks missing version bit 4.
Miners only signaled 2.53% of the previous 2,016 blocks, well below the 55% level of the earlier activation reference.
A few chains compliant with BIP-110 briefly appeared, but quickly fell behind the main chain.
The proposal aims to temporarily restrict on-chain data to relieve storage and bandwidth pressures, but critics warn that it could force rules diverge on the network.

Mandatory signal is activated, but miners 'participation remains low

The immediate consequences of the launch of BIP-110 are both procedural and practical: once the block height of 961,632 is reached, nodes implementing the proposal begin to apply stricter block acceptance standards. Specifically, they reject blocks for which version bit 4 is not set in the block version field.

In contrast, ordinary Bitcoin nodes continue to follow existing consensus rules and accept blocks regardless of whether version bit 4 is set. This difference is important because it transforms signaling experiments into performing stress tests-participants may have different views on "valid" blocks based on the rules they choose to perform.

BIP-110 monitoring data also showed that execution did not immediately attract enough miners support to maintain momentum. There were only 51 signal blocks out of the 2,016 blocks before the window opened. Proponents needed major changes in miners 'behavior to avoid the BIP-110 branch slowly advancing or stopping popping out of blocks rather than the mainstream chain of execution continuing to run.

BIP-110 attempts to change what content is on the chain

BIP-110 written by anonymous developer Dathon Ohm proposes additional consensus limits that are expected to last for about a year. The proposal targets the way Bitcoin scripts carry data, especially when large loads add to the workload of network participants.

Overall, BIP-110 will:

Limit most new output scripts to 34 bytes.
Limit the OP_RETURN output to 83 bytes.
Limit certain data push and witness elements to 256 bytes.
Temporarily restrict several Taproot related functions.

The proposal also includes exceptions for legacy outputs: non-transactional outputs created before activation will not be affected. This detail is important because it reduces the risk of immediately "disrupting" existing UTXO, shifting the impact to the construction of new transactions once the proposal takes effect.

argue that these restrictions will prevent behavior that they regard as non-monetary uses-such as inscriptions and other uses that increase node operators 'storage and bandwidth costs. The proposal's framework is that congestion and resource pressures should be addressed at the consensus level rather than relying on voluntary policy restrictions.

Why the current stage tests controversial consensus changes

The mandatory signaling window is designed to show whether miners are willing to align their blocks with the new rule set. In this example, the numbers are grim: in the monitoring window before the block height of 961,632, only 2.53% of the signals indicated that miners were not coordinating extensively around BIP-110.

The result poses a real dilemma for supporters: Without a significantly increased miner participation rate, the execution chain may be difficult to grow. Sources point out that a few branches did appear, but quickly fell behind the main chain, highlighting how difficult it is to maintain independent chains when most block production does not follow the same rule signals.

This is also where the proposal's broader network implications become clear. If an enforcement node rejects a transaction or block accepted by a non-enforcement node, a consensus divergence may arise-not necessarily a permanent fork, but a period when participants experience different validity rules.

So the significance of this milestone is not whether BIP-110 is "right" in principle, but whether supporters can make a controversial consensus change a reality without widespread support from miners. If coordination fails, this event can still serve as a signal: soft fork proposals that rely on version bit signaling and execution behavior require highly consistent support from miners.

Opposition from important people and possible alternative paths

The proposal has been strongly criticized by prominent people in the Bitcoin ecosystem. An article pointed out that Strategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor and Blockstream CEO Adam Back believe that BIP-110 may split Bitcoin, causing nodes to reject transactions allowed by existing rules of the network. Previous reports have also highlighted the ongoing controversy over junk transactions and data-intensive use of block space.

On the technical timeline, the deployment plan for BIP-110 uses version bit 4 and allocates block numbers to critical states. The forced signal window continues from blocks 961, 632 to 963, 647, during which time the execution node rejects blocks that do not contain signals. The specification then defines blocks 963, 648 as the starting point of the "locked" state and blocks 965, 664 as the effective point of transaction restrictions.

Sources also mentioned broader discussions on emergency plans. On August 1, Bitcoin developer Chris Guida rebased the preliminary code for the proof-of-work change originally written by Bitcoin Knots maintainer Luke Dashjr. Guida called the code a contingency plan for miners to oppose BIP-110, while saying no activation date had been set. These details suggest that supporters and developers have considered alternatives if the signaling route fails to achieve the required coordination.

However, the current reality is that the signal is weak, and if the execution rules do not match the miners 'behavior, the price is that the compliance block may not be able to keep up with the speed of the mainstream chain.

Looking ahead, investors, traders and node operators should pay attention to how miners 'signals evolve in subsequent windows, whether execution chains continue to lag behind or disappear completely, and whether developers will continue to refine any contingency plans if consensus support remains fragmented.