BIP-110: Why the Bitcoin elite opposed "anti-spam" measures and what it means for the network
One of the most heated debates in Bitcoin's history has erupted around BIP-110. Formally, this proposal aims to limit the non-transactional use of the blockchain — so-called spam in the form of images, texts, and other data unrelated to transactions. However, the reality turned out to be far more complex, and heavyweights like Michael Saylor and Adam Back, who cannot be suspected of sympathizing with spammers, have opposed the initiative.
The Essence of BIP-110: Seven Restrictions for One Year
The author under the pseudonym Dathon Ohm proposed introducing temporary restrictions for approximately one year. Key measures include a limit on scriptPubKey size to 34 bytes (with an exception for OP_RETURN up to 83 bytes), a ban on using the Taproot annex, a control block limit of 257 bytes, and a prohibition on executable OP_IF and OP_NOTIF within Tapscript. It is important to note that coins in addresses created before activation are not affected — they can be spent under the old rules.
The Battle for Activation: Miners vs. Nodes
The main stumbling block is the activation mechanism. BIP-110 uses a modified version of BIP 9, where the threshold is reduced from 95% to 55% of blocks per period, and the FAILED scenario is absent. If miners do not gather the required number of signals, the initiative moves into a forced phase, where nodes that have upgraded to BIP-110 begin rejecting blocks without bit 4. This effectively mirrors the logic of the 2017 UASF, when node operators pushed through SegWit.
However, in practice, support from miners has been minimal. Over eight months, the signal of support has not exceeded one and a half percent of new blocks. The largest pools — Foundry, AntPool, F2Pool — remain silent or openly oppose it. F2Pool co-founder Wang Chun categorically rejected the initiative. Meanwhile, the share of nodes on Bitcoin Knots ready to apply the new rules has grown to 8-20%, but as developer Jameson Lopp notes, these figures can easily be inflated via Tor.
Criticism: From Bugs to Precedents
Michael Saylor, in his 110-point essay, called BIP-110 an "iatrogenic" initiative — harm from the treatment itself. He pointed out that the seven changes cannot be adopted individually, and the temporary nature of the rules creates a dangerous precedent: after their removal, the possibility remains to push through any other change without consensus. Adam Back compared the situation to a "lynch mob" and emphasized that spam fits within the block size limit and does not threaten the network.
An even more serious problem is a technical vulnerability discovered by researcher Dathon Pwn using ChatGPT. An error in the BIP-110 activation client could lead to chain divergence: nodes that upgrade retroactively might recognize blocks as legitimate that they would have rejected upon re-verification. This creates a risk of network fragmentation.
Slovak developer Martin Habovštiak clearly demonstrated that BIP-110's restrictions can be bypassed. He recorded a 66-kilobyte image on the blockchain without using OP_RETURN, Taproot, or OP_IF, proving that the "fight against spam" is technically ineffective.
What's Next?
In early August, nodes with the new rules will begin rejecting blocks without bit 4. But for the rest of the network, nothing will change — it will continue to accept them as usual. The result will not be a split, but a parallel chain: smaller in both hashrate and number of participants. For the average coin holder, absolutely nothing has changed during this time: fees, transfers, and balances live their own lives while the war for Bitcoin's future rages on social media.
My Expert Commentary: BIP-110 is not just a technical proposal, but a test of the Bitcoin community's maturity. Attempting to push through changes without broad consensus, using a controversial activation mechanism, creates a dangerous precedent. Even if the temporary restrictions work, trust in the protocol's neutrality will be undermined. Bitcoin does not need "guardians of purity"; it needs "guardians of neutrality," as Saylor rightly noted. The August fork will show how many network participants are willing to sacrifice principles for a momentary fight against spam.