As of July 13, support for the BIP-110 soft fork among major mining pools is virtually nonexistent. The current signaling level is about 1% — a critically low figure that has not changed over several two-week difficulty adjustment periods. Monitoring data confirms that none of the leading pools are interested in activating this update.
BIP-110 proposes a temporary limit on the amount of data in bitcoin transactions unrelated to payments. Specifically, the document restricts OP_RETURN, blocks data fragments larger than 256 bytes, and introduces bans on a number of script formats used for storing information. Activation proceeds through a user-activated soft fork (UASF), with the miner support threshold reduced to 55% instead of the standard 95%. However, even this reduced threshold remains unattainable.
Among node operators, support stands 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 activation threshold expires at block height #961,632 — which will occur in early August. Even if miners do not reach the required percentage, the fork will still activate, presumably in September, but exclusively for those nodes that voluntarily adopt the new rules. Such nodes will form a separate, smaller chain, while the main network will continue operating as before.
Saylor and Back Oppose: "This Is a Dangerous Precedent"
Against the backdrop of minimal support, the initiative has been criticized by Strategy founder Michael Saylor and Blockstream co-founder Adam Back. Saylor stated that "there are 110 things more dangerous than spam for bitcoin." In his view, BIP-110 turns a debate about spam into a consensus change that could invalidate some already executed transactions with paid fees. According to the expert, it is this precedent that poses the main threat to the network: "We must conserve energy for truly important threats."
Adam Back directly addressed supporters of BIP-110. He acknowledged understanding their desire to protect the network from spam but categorically disagreed with the proposed method. In his opinion, 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. "You can only change your own software — others remain beyond your influence," Back emphasized.
The expert 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 who carefully scrutinize every technical decision. "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."
Analytical commentary from Cryptalist: The current situation with BIP-110 is a vivid example of how bitcoin's consensus mechanism works against hasty and ill-considered changes. Even with a reduced threshold of 55%, miners and node operators have virtually unanimously rejected the proposal. This demonstrates that the first cryptocurrency's ecosystem remains resilient to attempts to impose "top-down" changes. However, the very existence of such initiatives raises an important question: how to combat spam in the network without risking decentralization? The answer likely lies not in protocol forks, but in the development of the second layer and market-based fee mechanisms.