Exchange Ranking
Top Exchanges
24h Volume Ranking
Popularity Ranking
Exchange BTC Balance
Proof of Reserves
Decentralized Exchanges
Funding Rate
Funding Heatmap
Liquidation Data
Max Pain
Long/Short Ratio
Whale L/S Ratio
Binance/Okex/Huobi L/S
Bitfinex Margin L/S
ETF Tracker
Solana ETF
XRP ETF
Hong Kong ETF
Bitcoin Treasuries
Crypto Reversal
Ethereum Reserves
HyperLiquid Wallet Analysis
Hyperliquid Whale Watch
Large Transactions
On-chain Movement
Bitcoin ROI
Stablecoin Market Cap
Options Analysis
News
Articles
Economic Calendar
Features
Wallet
Contract Calculator
Security
Collections
Watchlist
Following
BTC Thaler steps up opposition to BIP110, and Bitcoin neutrality debate escalates
Thaler believes that Bitcoin's rules should remain neutral and avoid interfering with legal, paid transactions. BIP 110 proposes temporary restrictions on data-intensive transactions, including OP_RETURN and Taproot related uses. The current support rate for miners is about 0.86%, far below the 55% threshold required for activation. The core of the debate is whether decentralization requires stricter restrictions or broader transaction neutrality.
BIP110 restrictions spark Bitcoin governance debate
BIP110, or "reducing temporary soft forks of data," proposes a year-long change to consensus rules. The document was released by a person under the pseudonym Dathon Ohm and is marked as "Completed" in the improvement proposal warehouse. However, this label only indicates that technical specifications have been completed and does not mean that the network has reached broad consensus, activated or adopted.
The plan introduces seven temporary restrictions designed to limit data-intensive transactions. New output scripts are typically limited to 34 bytes, while OP_RETURN output faces an upper limit of 83 bytes. In addition, it will limit data pushes beyond 256 bytes, Taproot appendixes, large control blocks, undefined witness versions, and certain Tapscript operations. Coins created before activation will remain as they are and can be spent under existing rules.
Proponents argue that these restrictions will reduce arbitrary data linked through ordinal inscriptions, BRC-20 tokens, and similar applications. They say large data loads add storage, bandwidth and validation burdens to full-node operators. They also argue that non-payment activities compete with ordinary transfers for scarce block space. As demand rises, costs may increase and the cost of independently validating the network may be higher.
Thaler acknowledged concerns about node accessibility, but refused to make consensus enforcement a solution. He said in the article that rule changes should address clear failures that threaten the operation of the currency, rather than disputes over the purpose of the transaction. Along this line of thinking, miners should retain the right to freely choose paid transactions. Individual nodes can also apply relay filters without having to redefine transactions deemed valid by the entire network.
Low support among miners complicates BIP110 activation
The activation method of the proposal has also become another source of controversy. Miners need to obtain 55% of the signal during the 2016 block difficulty cycle. It also includes a user activation path and is scheduled to launch around August 2026. Bitcoin Core does not enforce the proposal in its current software. According to Bitcoin Optech, miners using the core need external block template software or need to mine empty blocks to ensure compliance after activation.
The current signal rate is approximately 0.86%, well below the required threshold. Major mining pools have not yet publicly joined the work, so a miner-led activation is unlikely under current circumstances. Still, nodes running this implementation may attempt to enforce it through planned user activation mechanisms. This possibility keeps the controversy alive despite limited miners 'participation.
This conflict now transcends inscriptions or token activities. The question it raises is: Does Bitcoin's neutrality mean accepting all valid and paid transactions under existing consensus rules? BIP 110 supporters believe that stricter restrictions could protect decentralization by reducing long-term operating costs. Siler believes that the agreement should remain neutral on the intentions of the transaction. This divergence defines the current debate.
He concluded by clearly summarizing his position: "Bitcoin does not need a guardian of purity. It needs neutral guardians."
