As of mid-July, support for the BIP-110 soft fork from major mining pools is virtually nonexistent. The current signaling level barely reaches 1%, indicating a complete lack of consensus among block producers. This is a critically important signal for the entire community, which I analyze as the lead expert at Cryptalist.
The Essence of BIP-110 and the Activation Mechanism
The BIP-110 proposal aims to limit the volume of non-financial data in Bitcoin transactions. It introduces limits on OP_RETURN, blocks data fragments larger than 256 bytes, and prohibits a number of scripts used for storing information. Activation is designed as a user-activated soft fork (UASF): nodes apply the new rules independently of miners. The support threshold for miners is reduced to 55% instead of the standard 95%, but even this barrier has not been overcome.
Current Situation and Timeline
Support is calculated within two-week difficulty adjustment periods (every 2016 blocks). In none of these periods has the indicator exceeded 1%. Among node operators, support remains at a few percent and is almost entirely provided by the alternative software Bitcoin Knots, rather than the main Bitcoin Core. The current period covers blocks #957,600 to #959,615, and the voluntary threshold expires at block height #961,632 — this will occur in early August. Even with zero miner support, the fork is expected to activate in September, but only for those nodes that choose to support it, forming a separate, smaller chain.
Reaction from Industry Leaders: Saylor and Back Oppose
Michael Saylor, founder of Strategy, sharply criticized the initiative, stating that "there are 110 things more dangerous than spam for Bitcoin." He emphasized that BIP-110 turns a debate into a consensus change, capable of invalidating some already conducted transactions with paid fees, which is a direct threat to the network. Adam Back, co-founder of Blockstream, supported this position, noting that he understands the desire to protect the network from spam but disagrees with the proposed method. He reminded that Bitcoin's mission is to build a free market based on sound money, not controlled by any single participant. "Bitcoin respectfully tells you 'no,'" Back concluded, adding that those who disagree have the right to create their own fork, but Bitcoin will not join it.
My Analysis and Forecast
As an analyst, I see in this situation a classic example of how the Bitcoin community defends its fundamental principles — immutability and decentralization. BIP-110, despite good intentions, violates these principles by attempting to impose subjective views of "spam." Even if the fork activates, its impact on the main network will be minimal. The market and users will most likely ignore the alternative chain, leading to its gradual decline. This is a lesson for anyone trying to change Bitcoin without broad consensus: the technology does not forgive hasty decisions.