As of mid-July, none of the major mining pools have expressed support for the BIP-110 soft fork. The current signaling level hovers around 1% of the total network hashrate. This indicates that the initiative, aimed at limiting non-payment data in transactions, has not resonated with miners.
The essence of BIP-110 is a temporary restriction on the volume of data unrelated to payments. The proposal introduces limits on OP_RETURN, blocks data fragments larger than 256 bytes, and prohibits certain script formats used for storing arbitrary information. Activation occurs through a user-activated soft fork: nodes apply the new rule independently of miners. The support threshold for miners is reduced to 55% instead of the standard 95%.
Support is calculated within two-week difficulty adjustment periods—each consisting of 2,016 blocks. In none of these periods has the indicator exceeded 1%. Among node operators, the situation is slightly better: support remains at a few percent, almost entirely due to the alternative software Bitcoin Knots rather than the main Bitcoin Core.
The current period covers blocks #957,600 to #959,615. The voluntary activation threshold expires at block height #961,632—this will occur in early August. Even if miners do not reach the required percentage, the fork will still activate, presumably in September, but only for those nodes that choose to support the new rules. Such nodes will form a separate, smaller chain, while the main network will continue operating unchanged.
Criticism from Industry Heavyweights
Against the backdrop of minimal support, the initiative was criticized by Strategy founder Michael Saylor and Blockstream co-founder Adam Back. Saylor noted that "there are 110 things more dangerous than spam for bitcoin." In his view, BIP-110 turns the debate over spam into a consensus change capable of invalidating some already executed transactions with paid fees. He called this precedent the main threat to the network.
Adam Back, in turn, directly addressed BIP-110 supporters. He emphasized that bitcoin's mission is to build a free market based on sound money, not controlled by any single participant. The absence of a central authority means no player has the right to impose their views on permissible transactions on others. Only one's own software can be changed.
Back also highlighted the role of consensus among developers, comparing it to the standard-setting process in the IETF. According to him, no programmer can push a change through the network without the consent of hundreds of other ecosystem participants. It is this collective review process that protects bitcoin from hasty changes. "Bitcoin respectfully tells you 'no,'" he concluded, adding that those who disagree retain the right to create their own fork, but "bitcoin will not join it."
My analysis: BIP-110 is a vivid example of how even well-intentioned efforts to combat spam crash against the fundamental principles of decentralization. The lack of support from miners and criticism from figures like Saylor and Back show that the community is not ready to sacrifice transaction immutability for temporary restrictions. This is the right signal: bitcoin should not become a platform for censorship, even if motivated by the fight against junk.