Hook
A Bitcoin Improvement Proposal that never stood a chance is already buried. BIP-110, the so-called “anti-spam” soft fork targeting Ordinals and Runes, has failed. Not because the code was flawed — but because the numbers speak for themselves. Miner signaling for the proposal? A paltry 1%. That’s not a faction; it’s a rounding error. Michael Saylor, Adam Back, and Jameson Lopp all condemned it before it even reached the signaling window. Yet, the debate isn’t about BIP-110 anymore. It’s about what happens when Bitcoin’s sacred “permissionlessness” collides with the cost of its success.
Context
Bitcoin’s block space has always been a scarce resource. But since the Ordinals protocol launched in early 2023, non-monetary transaction types — inscriptions, BRC-20, Runes — have surged, pushing fees to occasional spikes. For pure “digital gold” maximalists, this is noise. For miners, it’s revenue that offsets the coming subsidy decline. Enter BIP-110: a temporary soft fork that would cap the data per block for a set period, essentially forcing Ordinals-like usage offchain or into L2s. Introduced by a pseudonymous developer, the proposal lowered the activation threshold from the standard 95% miner approval to a mere 55% — a move immediately labeled “reckless” by core developers. The logic: bypass the usual conservative consensus to quickly clean the chain. The result: near-universal backlash.
Core: Forensic Dissection of a Dead Fork
Let’s get technical. BIP-110 is not a novel scaling solution — it’s a crude censorship tool disguised as a cleanup. The code itself is simple: a per-block weight limit reduction. But its activation mechanism is where the danger lies. By demanding only 55% of miners to signal, it opens the door to a minority-activated soft fork — a scenario that risks a permanent chain split. Saylor warned of exactly this: “If you lower the threshold, you invite division.” And Division is the one thing Bitcoin’s value proposition abhors.
My own experience with Ethereum 2.0’s slashing conditions taught me how fragile consensus machinery becomes when threshold games are played. That beast nearly burned the testnet. Bitcoin, with its far slower upgrade cycle, would not recover gracefully from a contentious hard fork. Back and Lopp aren’t simply Luddites — they understand that 95% isn’t tradition; it’s insurance.
Now, the economic layer. Miners surveyed by industry trackers (Luxor, Hashrate Index) show less than 1% support for BIP-110. Why? Because Ordinals-related fees have contributed a meaningful slice of total revenue during fee spikes — in April 2024, roughly 8% of total miner income came from inscriptions and runes. Cut that off, and you crater the incentive to secure the network in a post-halving era. The so-called “spam” puts food on the table. Saylor, as Strategy’s chairman, holding over 200k BTC, naturally opposes any change that undermines mining economics — it’s not just philosophy; it’s fiduciary duty.
Audit passed. Trust failed. The BIP-110 code is technically sound — no vulnerabilities found in the weight limit logic. But no one trusts the motive. The proposal attempts to solve a social problem with a protocol change: the belief that non-monetary transactions are “bad.” That’s a value judgment, not a crypto problem. And Bitcoin’s greatest strength — its permissionlessness — is exactly what the proposal violates. The moment you gate what data can settle on the base layer, you’ve created a precedent. Saylor explicitly called this out: “If you start blocking inscriptions, what’s next? Privacy tools? Sidechains? You open a regulatory backdoor.” He’s right. The slippery slope isn’t a fallacy here — it’s a design risk.
Contrarian: The Rot Nobody Wants to Admit
Here’s the uncomfortable truth: BIP-110’s death doesn’t solve the problem — it merely preserves the status quo. Ordinals and Runes will continue to bloat blocks, driving up fees for ordinary users during mania phases. That’s not healthy; it’s unsustainable. The market adjusts, yes — users will naturally migrate to L2s (Lightning, RGB, Rootstock) when fees exceed a threshold. But that migration is messy and slow. Meanwhile, Bitcoin’s governance is ossified: any change now requires a supermajority of miners, developers, and community leaders — a group that can only agree to stay frozen. The “don’t touch the base layer” doctrine is becoming a cult of inaction.
Consider the signal: BIP-444, another anti-spam proposal that raises the block weight via a more traditional soft fork, is also stalled. The core developers can’t even agree on a clean fix. So we’re left with a protocol that can’t adapt to its own success. The Ordinals boom proved that Bitcoin has latent demand for assets beyond pure gold. But the governance ship is too heavy to turn. For anyone holding Bitcoin for the next decade, the question isn’t whether BIP-110 passes — it’s whether the community can ever agree to fix the fee market without breaking the network. The answer, based on this episode, is a cold no.
Beacon chain stable. Fragility remains. Bitcoin’s L1 is rock-solid. But its governance is brittle as old bone. The contrarian angle: the failure of BIP-110 is a long-term bear case for Bitcoin’s ability to capture any value beyond store-of-metal. Meanwhile, L2s like Stacks and Lightning will thrive precisely because the main chain refuses to evolve. That’s opportunity for developers — but a warning for maximalists who think Bitcoin can remain the only settlement layer forever.
Takeaway
BIP-110 is dead. Good. But the issues that spawned it — censorship pressure, fee spikes, governance paralysis — won’t stay buried. The next proposal might be more subtle, or it might come from a larger project with more hashpower. Watch signalling data and miner statements. If another anti-spam fork emerges with even 10% hashrate, the debate will no longer be academic. For now, though, the code says no. The market agrees. And the rot remains.
