Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 is moving toward a critical enforcement window even as public miner signaling remains negligible. With Aug. 9 approaching as the likely point for mandatory signaling, support from mining pools is still under 3%, well below the 55% threshold many observers usually associate with a successful Bitcoin network upgrade.
Backers of the proposal say that metric is beside the point. BIP-110 is structured as a user-activated soft fork, or UASF, not as a miner vote.
The dispute has become a fresh demonstration of how Bitcoin governance works in practice: rule changes depend on economic coordination, not on a simple headcount or a single bloc’s approval.
BIP-110 nears its planned trigger while standard approval is already out of reach
Bitcoin is heading into an unusual weekend test. A small group of nodes is preparing to reject blocks produced by almost all of the network’s miners.
BIP-110 is a controversial proposal that would temporarily restrict how much non-payment data can be stored on the Bitcoin blockchain, making inscription techniques used by Ordinals and Runes impractical. The proposal is approaching its long-planned mandatory signaling period, expected around Aug. 9. If activation actually happens, it would follow at block 965,664, which is estimated to arrive about four weeks later.
By ordinary standards, the proposal no longer has a path to 55% approval. Public signaling from mining pools remains barely visible at under 3%, and with only two days left before the network reaches the relevant block height, there has been no meaningful change in miner support.
If BIP-110 were treated as a referendum, the scale of defeat would be overwhelming. Its supporters reject that framing. Their argument is that Bitcoin software allows anyone to adopt a different version of the code and enforce the rules they believe define the network.
Nodes and miners do different jobs
Nodes are computers running Bitcoin software that independently verify transactions and blocks against the network’s rules, rejecting anything they consider invalid. Miners produce new blocks. Nodes decide whether those blocks are accepted.
Supporters of BIP-110 say that distinction is the core issue. In their view, miners do not govern Bitcoin; they only create blocks. Nodes determine whether those blocks comply with the rules. User-activated soft forks are built around that principle, allowing node operators to begin enforcing new rules from a predetermined block height regardless of miner support.
This is not a new theory inside Bitcoin. The same philosophy supported the activation of SegWit in 2017 despite miner resistance. SegWit separated digital signatures from transaction data, and that change later opened the way for Ordinals and Runes, the very uses BIP-110 now seeks to restrict.
What the proposal’s backers are saying
Dathon Ohm, the pseudonymous author of the proposal, wrote on X on Thursday: “Bitcoiners are about to show the world, once again, what happens when the plebs stand up against large, corrupt institutions who are telling us Bitcoin isn’t money and our nodes belong to them.”
The same thread also included instructions for miners intending to enforce the BIP-110 rules. It advised them to upgrade to Bitcoin Knots, described as the primary software carrying and enforcing BIP-110, and warned against running Bitcoin Core, calling it “insecure” in that scenario. Bitcoin Core remains the principal software implementation on the network and represents Bitcoin’s current rules.
Ohm also wrote: “BIP-110 is a movement by the plebs, for the plebs, standing up and arming themselves with software to tell these institutions in one resounding, unified voice:
BITCOIN IS MONEY, OUR NODES BELONG TO US, AND WE WILL NEVER GIVE UP.”
The fight is really about what Bitcoin block space is for
BIP-110 is designed to temporarily tighten Bitcoin consensus rules so that inscription methods used by Ordinals and Runes become impractical. Supporters argue that using the network for non-financial data consumes block space, makes the system more expensive to run, and weakens Bitcoin’s purpose as digital money.
Critics point to the lack of miner support as proof that the proposal is effectively dead. Backers reject that premise. The disagreement extends into a broader argument over who gets to decide how Bitcoin block space should be used.
Opponents say one of Bitcoin’s greatest strengths is its exceptionally high threshold for changing consensus rules. In their view, the fee market should determine block-space allocation.
Supporters answer that BIP-110 is less about rewriting Bitcoin than restoring it. They say users have both the right and the responsibility to reject software changes they believe alter the network’s intended behavior.
The next test will show up on-chain, not in forum arguments
When Bitcoin reaches block 961,632, nodes running BIP-110 software will begin rejecting blocks that do not signal support, even if those blocks remain accepted by the broader network. If some miners continue producing signaling blocks while the rest continue mining as usual, two branches could emerge. At the outset, the BIP-110 branch would likely control only a small fraction of Bitcoin’s total hash rate.
Whether that would work in BIP-110’s favor is still unclear, and the report notes that many observers see such an outcome as unlikely. Even so, some bitcoin-only exchanges plan to pause deposits and withdrawals temporarily around the activation window. That precaution reflects a basic reality of Bitcoin consensus: it is not determined by hash rate alone, nor by node counts in isolation, but by coordination among miners, exchanges, wallet providers, and other economic actors.
Away from the mining sector, the proposal also appears to have little support among prominent figures. Michael Saylor and Adam Back have both voiced opposition.
Whether BIP-110 succeeds or fails, its significance may extend beyond the immediate debate over Ordinals or so-called spam once the Aug. 9 activation point passes.
The next measurable test will come in blocks, not words. If enforcing nodes reject the dominant chain on Sunday, the question becomes whether enough miners, exchanges, and users follow them to keep a second branch alive.