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 Bitcoin BIP-110 soft fork proposal faces deadline: No miners support, key figures oppose
Bitcoin (BTC)'s most controversial agreement debate in years is coming to an end in a default way. BIP-110, a proposal to temporarily restrict non-financial data on the Bitcoin blockchain, will have a voluntary lock-in deadline in early August. However, the miners 'signal currently has zero support and is opposed by two of the most influential figures in the ecosystem.
The proposal was proposed by pseudonym developer "Dathon Ohm" in December 2025 and was supported by Luke Dashjr, founder of the Ocean Protocol. The proposal targets methods of embedding arbitrary data in Bitcoin transactions, particularly OP_RETURN output and script or witness data used for Ordinals inscriptions and token mechanisms. Under BIP-110, OP_RETURN will be restored to an earlier, smaller size limit; most arbitrary data blocks larger than 256 bytes will be blocked; and certain script formats used primarily for data storage will be restricted. This restriction will last for a year.
Why Siler and Buck said "no"
MicroStrategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor posted on Platform X on Saturday: "There are 110 things that are more dangerous to Bitcoin than 'spam'." His view is not that the Ordinals inscription is harmless, but that codifying the acceptability of transactions into consensus rules would set a precedent with greater long-term risks than the data inflation problem the proposal seeks to solve. He pointed out that BIP-110 would invalidate currently valid transactions with fees paid, and the rule change itself was the problem.
Blockstream co-founder Adam Back went further, calling BIP-110 a "pursuit of discipline" that conflicts with the permissionless, censory-resistant foundation on which Bitcoin was built. Buck said that those who are dissatisfied with the current direction Bitcoin is developing can choose to fork, but Bitcoin will not follow. Both figures have criticized Ordinals in the past, which makes their opposition particularly eye-catching: they do not defend Ordinals 'activities, but rather tend to view BIP-110 as the wrong tool to solve the problem.
Deadline approaches, support is almost zero
BIP-110 uses a user-activated soft fork mechanism that allows nodes to execute new rules without miners 'approval, but still sets a miner signal threshold of 55%, which is lower than the 95% required for traditional soft forks. Even if the threshold is lowered, support is almost non-existent. The miners 'signal peaked at approximately 1% during the 475 cycle (covering blocks 955,584 to 957,599) and has since dropped to zero. No major mining pool supports the proposal. On the node side, adoption rates are at low single-digit levels, almost entirely concentrated in Bitcoin Knots-a niche choice that competes with mainstream Bitcoin core clients.
The current signal cycle will last until block 959, 615. The voluntary lock-in deadline falls in Block 961,542 in the next cycle, which is expected to occur in early August, and the activation time is expected to be around September. If this threshold is reached only in BIP-110 nodes, the result will not be a network-wide rule change, but a split of a few chains-that most networks will not follow. In addition, Ordinals activity has dropped significantly, with the number of daily inscriptions less than 10,000 in the past month, well below the peak of more than 400,000 in August 2023, which has even reduced the actual urgency seen by those who support the proposal's goals.
