BIP-110 under threat of failure: miners ignore the fork, and industry leaders have spoken out against it.
As of July 13, no major mining pool has shown interest in the BIP-110 soft fork. The level of support from block producers remains at around 1% in the current period. This indicates that the initiative aimed at clearing the network of "spam" is finding virtually no resonance among key ecosystem participants.
What does BIP-110 propose?
This proposal introduces temporary limits on data volume in non-financial transactions. It restricts the use of OP_RETURN, blocks data fragments larger than 256 bytes, and prohibits a number of scripts used for storing information. Activation occurs through a soft fork with a reduced miner support threshold — just 55% instead of the standard 95%. However, even this lowered barrier has proven unattainable.
Miner support is measured in two-week cycles of 2016 blocks. In none of these cycles did the indicator exceed 1%. The situation among node operators is not much better: support hovers at a few percent, almost exclusively due to the alternative client 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 in September, but only for those nodes that choose to support it. They will form a separate chain, while the main network will continue operating as usual.
Saylor and Back: Criticism from Different Sides
Against the backdrop of low support, the initiative was 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 the debate about spam into a consensus change that could invalidate already completed transactions with paid fees. He called this the main threat to the network.
Adam Back directly addressed the fork's supporters. He noted that he understands their desire to protect the network from spam but disagrees with the proposed method. According to the expert, bitcoin's mission as digital gold is to build a free market based on sound currency, not controlled by any single participant. The absence of a central authority means that no one has the right to impose their views on permissible transactions on others. Only one's own software can be changed.
Back also emphasized the role of consensus among developers, comparing it to processes in the IETF. According to him, no programmer can implement a change without the consent of hundreds of ecosystem participants who carefully scrutinize every technical decision. "Bitcoin respectfully tells you 'no,'" he summarized, 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 good intentions can collide with the harsh reality of consensus. The lack of support from miners and industry leaders makes this fork practically stillborn. The market and community are clearly not ready for radical changes that could disrupt the network's neutrality. In the coming months, we will likely see only symbolic activity around this proposal, rather than an actual chain split.