Here is a rewritten version with a fresh structure and wording:
BIP-110 has gained little support from Bitcoin miners, but its user-activated design means the proposal is still moving toward its scheduled activation period and could continue influencing Bitcoin’s governance debate even afterward.
Bitcoin is approaching a rare test of its consensus system this weekend, as a small number of nodes prepare to reject blocks produced by most of the network’s miners.
The Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP)-110, a controversial effort to temporarily limit the amount of non-transaction data stored on the blockchain, is nearing its mandatory signaling stage, expected around Aug. 9. If the proposal moves forward, enforcement is set to begin at block 965,664, which is projected to occur roughly one month later.
Under the proposal’s original framework, miners would need to signal support from 55% of the network’s hash power. That threshold now appears almost impossible to reach.
Bitcoin nodes and miners play different roles in maintaining the network. Nodes independently verify transactions and blocks according to Bitcoin’s consensus rules, while miners create blocks. However, final acceptance depends on whether nodes consider those blocks valid.
Based on current support levels, BIP-110 faces significant challenges. Mining pool backing remains below 3%, leaving the proposal with limited support before the signaling period begins. If miner approval alone determined Bitcoin’s future, the initiative would likely already be considered unsuccessful.
However, BIP-110 supporters argue that Bitcoin’s decentralized structure gives individual users the ability to enforce the rules they believe are necessary, even without widespread miner approval.
Dathon Ohm, the pseudonymous creator of BIP-110, has framed the effort as a grassroots movement by Bitcoin users who want to prevent influential organizations and major stakeholders from shaping the network’s future direction.
In a recent post on X, Ohm provided guidance for miners interested in supporting the proposal. He encouraged them to run Bitcoin Knots, the main software client implementing BIP-110, and warned against using Bitcoin Core, arguing that the widely adopted client would not function properly under the new rules.
The proposal aims to tighten Bitcoin’s restrictions on inscription-based activities, including Ordinals and Runes, by limiting their use of block space. Supporters claim these applications increase transaction costs, make node operation more expensive, and move Bitcoin away from its original role as decentralized money.
Opponents argue that the lack of miner support shows BIP-110 has little chance of succeeding. Supporters, however, maintain that miners are not the ultimate decision-makers in Bitcoin governance. While miners produce blocks, nodes determine whether those blocks comply with consensus rules.
This approach follows the idea of a user-activated soft fork (UASF), where node operators enforce new rules at a specific block height regardless of miner approval.
A similar strategy was used during Bitcoin’s 2017 SegWit activation, when users pushed forward with the upgrade despite opposition from some mining groups. SegWit later enabled technologies such as Ordinals and Runes — the same types of applications BIP-110 now seeks to restrict.
Once the network reaches block 961,632, nodes running BIP-110-compatible software will begin rejecting blocks that violate the proposal’s rules, even if those blocks remain valid under the majority chain.
If some miners adopt BIP-110 while others continue following existing rules, Bitcoin could face a chain split, creating two competing versions of the network. The BIP-110 chain would likely begin with only a fraction of Bitcoin’s total computing power.
Whether such a minority chain could survive remains uncertain, with many observers viewing a successful split as unlikely. Some cryptocurrency exchanges are preparing for possible instability by temporarily restricting deposits and withdrawals during the activation window, highlighting that Bitcoin consensus depends on cooperation among miners, nodes, exchanges, developers, wallets, and users.
The proposal has also struggled to win support from influential Bitcoin figures outside the mining industry. Prominent voices including Michael Saylor and Adam Back have expressed criticism of the initiative.
Critics argue that Bitcoin’s strength comes from maintaining strict resistance to consensus changes and that block space should be determined by market demand through transaction fees.
BIP-110 advocates disagree, saying the proposal does not fundamentally alter Bitcoin but instead preserves what they view as the network’s original purpose. They argue that users have both the right and responsibility to reject changes that could shift Bitcoin away from its intended design.
Regardless of whether it succeeds, BIP-110 could have lasting implications beyond the debate over Ordinals, Runes, and block space allocation.
The proposal’s real test will come from actual network behavior rather than online arguments. If BIP-110 nodes begin rejecting the dominant chain, the critical question will be whether enough miners, exchanges, and users choose to support the alternative network and help it survive.
