The BIP-110 soft fork, aimed at limiting non-financial data in Bitcoin transactions, has encountered an almost complete lack of support from miners. As of July 13, no major mining pool has signaled readiness for activation, and the overall support level in the current period hovers around 1%. This is confirmed by network monitoring data.
The essence of the proposal is a temporary limitation on the volume of data unrelated to payments. BIP-110 restricts the use of OP_RETURN, blocks most data fragments larger than 256 bytes, and introduces bans on a number of script formats used for storing information. Activation involves a user-activated soft fork: nodes apply the new rules regardless of miner consent, with the support threshold for miners reduced to 55% instead of the standard 95%.
Technical Details and Current Situation
Miner support is calculated within two-week network difficulty adjustment periods — every 2016 blocks. In none of these periods has it exceeded 1%. Among node operators, the indicator is also low — 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, and 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 rest of the network will continue to operate as before.
Reaction from Industry Leaders
Against the backdrop of minimal support, the initiative was criticized by Strategy founder Michael Saylor and Blockstream co-founder Adam Back. Saylor wrote that "there are 110 things more dangerous than spam for Bitcoin." In his opinion, BIP-110 turns the spam debate into a consensus change that could invalidate some 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 him, 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 player 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 the standard-setting process in the IETF. "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: The current situation with BIP-110 demonstrates Bitcoin's resilience to hasty changes. Despite the authors' good intentions, the attempt to limit non-financial data through a consensus change has faced strong resistance from key figures in the ecosystem. Miners likely see no economic benefit in supporting the fork, and criticism from heavyweights like Saylor and Back only strengthens their position. Ultimately, this is another reminder that Bitcoin is not just a technology but a complex socio-economic consensus, where any changes pass through a strict filter.