Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110) has become one of the most discussed proposals in the Bitcoin ecosystem in 2026. The proposal aims to limit the amount of arbitrary data that can be embedded in Bitcoin transactions, primarily targeting inscription-based protocols such as Ordinals, BRC-20, and Runes. Supporters believe the proposal will help reduce blockchain bloat, lower node operating costs, and preserve Bitcoin’s role as a peer-to-peer payment network. Critics, however, argue that it could restrict legitimate use cases, impact Layer-2 development, and introduce protocol-level censorship.

With the miner signaling window approaching, the discussion around BIP-110 has expanded beyond technical implementation to broader questions about Bitcoin’s governance, decentralization, and future development. This article examines why the proposal was introduced, the changes it proposes, the arguments from both sides, and what the outcome could mean for the Bitcoin network.

What Is BIP-110?

BIP-110 is a proposed temporary soft fork that introduces stricter limits on how arbitrary data can be stored within Bitcoin transactions. The proposal was first introduced in October 2025 under the placeholder draft name BIP-444 by pseudonymous Bitcoin developer Dathon Ohm.

Its primary objective is to reduce non-financial data stored on the Bitcoin blockchain by restricting the transaction structures commonly used by Ordinals, BRC-20 tokens, and Runes. The proposal also aims to reduce blockchain growth, lower node hardware requirements, and improve accessibility for individuals running full Bitcoin nodes.

Although the proposal’s technical specification has been marked as complete, it still requires ecosystem support before any activation can occur.

Why Was BIP-110 Proposed?

The proposal was introduced in response to the rapid growth of inscription-based protocols that use Bitcoin block space to store images, tokens, and other forms of arbitrary data. Supporters argue that these applications have significantly increased blockchain storage requirements while driving higher transaction fees for standard Bitcoin users.

According to the proposal, four major issues have emerged:

Proponents also argue that recent policy changes in Bitcoin Core made it easier for data-heavy transactions to enter the network, accelerating blockchain growth and increasing pressure on node operators.

What Changes Would BIP-110 Introduce?

Rather than banning inscription protocols directly, BIP-110 modifies transaction validation rules to make storing large amounts of arbitrary data significantly more difficult.

These restrictions would significantly impact protocols that rely on embedding large amounts of data on-chain.

Potential Impact Across the Ecosystem

Why Has the Proposal Become So Controversial?

BIP-110 has divided the Bitcoin community over a fundamental question: Should Bitcoin prioritize its role as a monetary network, or remain completely permissionless regardless of how block space is used?

Supporters argue that inscription-based protocols are consuming valuable block space, increasing node costs, and making it more expensive for users to participate in the network.

Luke Dashjr, one of Bitcoin’s long-time developers and a supporter of the proposal, has described BIP-110 as “a temporary measure designed to keep validation accessible and protect node operators from unnecessary storage costs.”

Jason Hughes, Vice President of Development and Engineering at OCEAN, echoed a similar view, saying:

“We need to maintain the purity of the blockchain’s base layer to keep it decentralized. BIP-110 restores historical policy caps that should never have been bypassed.”

Independent Bitcoin researcher Robert Allen also believes action is necessary, stating:

“BIP-110 is imperfect, but it is highly preferable to leaving the issue of blockchain spam completely unaddressed.”

Veteran Bitcoin investor Fred Krueger took a broader perspective on the debate, saying:

“Eventually we will figure out some way to deal with spam, quantum, and other issues… Bitcoin will make it through.”

Despite these arguments, opposition to BIP-110 remains significant.

Adam Back, CEO of Blockstream, dismissed the proposal as an unnecessary attempt to regulate how users interact with the network, describing it as a “quest to police other people,” which he believes conflicts with Bitcoin’s permissionless design.

Bitcoin security expert Jameson Lopp has also criticized the proposal, arguing that its architectural priorities are misplaced and warning against introducing consensus changes that could affect broader ecosystem development.

Developer Peter Todd questioned the proposal’s effectiveness, arguing that determined users could bypass many of the proposed restrictions, limiting its practical impact.

Community criticism extends beyond developers. Crypto analyst Javier Hermosa compared the proposal’s supporters to overly restrictive policy advocates, while Ki Young Ju, CEO of CryptoQuant, remarked:

“BIP-110 is like amending the constitution to ban littering in the park.”

Similarly, Samson Mow questioned the proposal’s chances of success, stating:

“It doesn’t have consensus… especially amongst technical development experts… and there are a lot of ordinary people using Bitcoin that don’t agree with it either.”

Supporters vs Critics

What Happens Next?

The next stage for BIP-110 is the miner signaling period scheduled to begin in August 2026. According to the available proposal details, miner support currently remains extremely limited, with signaling reported at approximately 0.31%.

If sufficient support is not achieved during the activation window, the proposal is unlikely to move forward in its current form. However, the broader discussion around inscription protocols, node costs, and Bitcoin’s long-term scalability is expected to continue regardless of BIP-110’s outcome.

Conclusion

BIP-110 has evolved beyond a technical proposal into a broader discussion about Bitcoin’s future. While supporters view it as a way to reduce blockchain bloat and improve node accessibility, critics believe it could limit innovation and alter Bitcoin’s permissionless nature. Regardless of its outcome, the proposal is likely to influence future discussions on Bitcoin governance and protocol development.

Why Is BIP-110 Creating So Much Controversy, and What Could It Mean for Bitcoin’s Future? was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.