A proposal to alter Bitcoin's consensus rules has ignited one of the network's most contentious governance debates in years. Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110) would temporarily restrict several methods used to embed non-financial data, such as images and text, in Bitcoin transactions. Supporters argue it would reduce blockchain spam, while critics warn it could invalidate valid transactions and risk a chain split.
What BIP-110 Would Change
Bitcoin transactions can carry more than just payments; they can include text, images, token metadata, and other information through transaction scripts and witness data. BIP-110, as a soft fork, would tighten Bitcoin's consensus rules by limiting these data-embedding techniques. Specifically, it would cap most new transaction outputs at 34 bytes, restore an 83-byte limit for OP_RETURN outputs, limit certain witness elements to 256 bytes, and temporarily restrict several Taproot features commonly used for inscriptions—Bitcoin's equivalent of NFTs on Ethereum or Solana.
Critics say BIP-110 would invalidate transactions that are currently valid under Bitcoin's rules and set a dangerous precedent. In a February blog post, Casa Chief Security Officer Jameson Lopp argued that the proposal would weaken Bitcoin's censorship resistance and predictability. "BIP-110 signals that the protocol can be altered to censor subjectively 'undesirable' transactions, eroding its image as permissionless programmable money," Lopp wrote.
Divided Reactions from Key Figures
The debate has drawn reactions from prominent Bitcoin figures. Strategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor wrote on X: "There are 110 things more dangerous to Bitcoin than spam. BIP 110 turns a spam dispute into a consensus change that would invalidate some currently valid, fee-paying transactions. That precedent is the danger." Blockstream CEO Adam Back argued that Bitcoin's decentralized design prevents users from imposing preferences on others, adding that supporters are free to create their own fork, but "Bitcoin won't be joining it."
BIP-110's mandatory signaling period begins in August, and so far, only 1% of miners have shown support, according to the proposal's monitoring dashboard. Bitcoin advocate Samson Mow, in an essay titled "The Bitcoin Alliance," urged participants to think of themselves as an alliance rather than a community. He opposed BIP-110, arguing that protocol changes require broad consensus and criticizing Bitcoin Core developers for mishandling related policy changes.
The Ordinals Origin
The dispute traces back to early 2023 with the launch of Ordinals, a protocol by Casey Rodarmor that allows digital content to be inscribed onto individual satoshis. Ordinals use features from SegWit and Taproot upgrades to create NFT-like assets on the Bitcoin blockchain. As Ordinals and BRC-20 tokens gained popularity, demand for block space increased, pushing transaction fees higher—a development supporters say benefits miners, while critics like developer Luke Dashjr label it spam.
During the Blocksize War (2015–2017), the small block camp prevailed, with big blockers forking to create Bitcoin Cash and later Bitcoin SV. Mow drew parallels, noting that the earlier conflict never involved coercion. "We just all 'got it' and were confident in our position," he wrote, while warning that the current dispute risks unnecessary division.