BIP-110 Sparks Bitcoin Civil War! Should Inscriptions Be Restricted? Adam Back Furious, "Mobs Attack," 55% Threshold Is Dividing the Community

BIP-110 Technical Proposal Sparks Intense Debate on Bitcoin’s On-Chain Data Storage

Bitcoin is currently experiencing a heated ideological debate comparable to the 2017 “block size war.” The trigger is a technical proposal called BIP-110, which aims to implement a soft fork to set a limit on the amount of non-monetary data that can be stored in each block—essentially restricting protocols like Ordinals and Runes from inscribing images, videos, or code directly onto the blockchain.

The emergence of BIP-110 marks the beginning of a counterattack by the “Minimalist” camp led by developer Dathon Ohm against the “Liberal” faction.

Supporters see this as “correcting the course,” while opponents, including Adam Back, condemn it as “mob rule.” The debate has spread from technical circles to miners, institutions, and large node operators, even drawing attention from community leaders like Adam Back.

This is not just about bytes; it’s a fundamental battle over Bitcoin’s core value proposition.

The Past and Present of BIP-110—Targeting the Inscription Protocol

BIP-110 did not come out of nowhere. Its precursor, BIP-444, proposed by Dathon Ohm in October 2025, aimed to temporarily limit the size of non-monetary data to observe network performance under low load conditions.

Initially intended as a one-year trial, the proposal gained urgency when Bitcoin Core v30 removed byte limits on OP_RETURN, which purists saw as a betrayal of Bitcoin’s “monetary function” and akin to greenlighting blockchain spam.

In response, Ohm released a more stringent version, BIP-110, in December last year, imposing tighter restrictions.

Supporters argue these limits are not about stifling innovation but restoring the technical caution that Bitcoin maintained in its early days. These rules do not affect normal payment and store-of-value use cases but target what they see as “data abuse”—non-financial records that flood the chain.

The 55% Activation Threshold Sparks Controversy—Mob Rule or Decentralized Power?

What truly ignited community outrage was the activation threshold set by BIP-110: only 55% of hash power support is needed for activation.

Traditionally, major protocol upgrades in Bitcoin require 95% miner support to ensure network stability and prevent chain splits. Past upgrades like SegWit and Taproot followed this unwritten rule.

This lower threshold has triggered chaos in governance discussions.

Proponents argue that 95% support gives a minority veto power. The inability to remove spam data is due to minority stakeholders resisting. The 55% threshold is seen as a “defensive activation” to break deadlocks in protocol upgrades.

Opponents, including Adam Back, accuse this of being “a mob attack on Bitcoin’s reputation,” attempting to push through rule changes without broad consensus.

With just a simple majority of miners, 45% could be forced to accept the change. This low barrier risks chain splits and the creation of multiple Bitcoin assets.

More alarmingly, setting this precedent could lead to future restrictions—such as freezing addresses—undermining Bitcoin’s “immutability.”

Factions Clash—Minimalism Could Cut Off Miners’ Livelihoods

Led by Luke Dashjr, a group of developers and dedicated Bitcoin Knots users oppose BIP-110. Their logic stems from concerns over Bitcoin’s hardware requirements.

Bitcoin advocate Matthew Kratter compares inscription protocols to ivy—while they grow on the Bitcoin “tree,” they threaten to crush it, leading to the death of both.

If block space is filled with images, blockchain size could grow exponentially. This would make running full nodes on consumer-grade hardware impossible, centralizing validation to large nodes and undermining decentralization.

As controversy intensifies, Bitcoin Knots’ market share has surged to 22.49%, while Bitcoin Core’s has fallen to 77.39%. This trend indicates some nodes are switching clients to support data restrictions.

Opposition figures like Adam Back and influential miners warn that frequent protocol changes threaten Bitcoin’s integrity.

Michael Saylor, CEO of Strategy, warns that constant protocol tweaks are Bitcoin’s greatest threat.

Adam Back, CEO of Blockstream, emphasizes that Bitcoin’s value lies in its immutability. If rules can be easily changed by a minority, Bitcoin’s reputation as “digital gold” erodes.

Economically, the debate reflects community anxiety over Bitcoin’s “long-term security budget.” As halving cycles progress, security increasingly depends on transaction fees rather than block rewards.

Non-monetary transactions contribute to fee volatility. Data from Dune shows inscription protocol fees have fallen below $10,000 daily, after reaching nearly $10 million in December 2023. With block rewards halving, miners are reluctant to block any revenue source.

Miners generally believe market cycles shouldn’t justify protocol changes; non-monetary transactions remain a vital income stream during downturns.

Fee Market Imbalance—Governance Erosion and Legal Risks

The decline in inscription fees also gives supporters a pretext. Since the economic benefit from inscriptions is minimal, removing them could optimize network performance—reducing UTXO set size and node load.

Supporters argue that BIP-110’s deeper economic rationale is to end unfair competition: current fee discounts for storing data incentivize spam, as storing a 1MB image is cheaper than sending an equivalent monetary transaction.

BIP-110 aims to end this “unfair competition” by imposing data limits at the consensus level, forcing low-value data to compete for more expensive, non-discounted space or leave the main network.

Proponents believe this will restore fee market integrity, prioritizing monetary transactions that pay a premium for “global consensus.”

However, if proposals like BIP-110—characterized by “temporary and low-threshold”—are adopted, they could undermine Bitcoin’s institutional trust. For institutions, Bitcoin’s appeal lies in its unchangeable rules.

Setting such a precedent could lead to future address asset freezes or forced fee adjustments.

This “governance erosion” is a major concern for Adam Back and Michael Saylor. Even a spam-filled protocol is preferable to a “modifiable” one—because the latter’s unpredictability deters institutional adoption.

Additionally, BIP-110 could render some UTXOs “dead,” effectively confiscating user assets temporarily. Legally, this could expose miners to accusations of “interfering with private property.”

BIP-110 is an inevitable symptom of Bitcoin’s growing pains. Its activation remains uncertain, especially given the community’s traditional resistance to a 55% threshold.

The key takeaway is that BIP-110 raises the issue of “data abuse,” forcing the community to reconsider “what should Bitcoin’s mainnet carry?”

Bitcoin’s greatest strength isn’t its unchangeability but the rigorous testing each change undergoes. Future Bitcoin might become more pure—or more fragmented—due to this debate.

In this digital gold defense war, every node operator, with their disk space and bandwidth, is casting a vote for the future.