BIP-110 Proposes 12-Month Fork to Combat Ordinals Data
A technical proposal introduced in December 2025 has ignited a significant conflict within the Bitcoin community. Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP)-110, authored by a developer using the pseudonym Dathon Ohm, aims to limit the volume of arbitrary data, such as images and text, being written onto the blockchain through protocols like Ordinals and Runes.
The proposal's method is to implement a temporary 12-month soft fork designed to filter these transactions, which some developers consider 'spam', at the consensus level. By disabling certain opcodes (OP_SUCCESS) and limiting Taproot's control block size, the BIP seeks to clean up on-chain data but has drawn sharp criticism for its potential side effects on future Bitcoin upgrades and Layer-2 technologies.
Back Warns of Censorship Risk from 55% Activation Threshold
Bitcoin pioneer and Blockstream CEO Adam Back, alongside other industry veterans like Jameson Lopp, has come out strongly against BIP-110. The primary objection centers on the threat to Bitcoin's core principle of neutrality. Back argues that attempting to censor specific transaction types at the consensus layer is fundamentally more damaging to the network than the 'spam' it intends to remove.
Opponents highlight two critical technical dangers. First is the risk of confiscation, as the proposal could render some existing Unspent Transaction Outputs (UTXOs) unusable, effectively freezing user funds. Second, and perhaps more severe, is the risk of a network split. The proposal suggests a 55% activation threshold for miners, a significant deviation from the traditional 95% consensus required for soft forks. Critics warn that activating a major change without overwhelming support could easily fracture the Bitcoin blockchain into competing branches.
Debate Becomes a Test for Bitcoin's Governance
The controversy over BIP-110 has evolved beyond a technical disagreement into a defining moment for Bitcoin's governance and future philosophy. The outcome is viewed by many as a 'great filter' for the network's identity. If the community rejects the proposal, it would reaffirm Bitcoin’s long-standing commitment to censorship resistance and permissionless innovation, accepting chain bloat as a necessary trade-off.
Conversely, if BIP-110 is accepted, it could signal a pivot toward more centralized governance, where a simple majority can alter the protocol's rules to fit a specific agenda. This clash pits the practical desire to manage on-chain resources against the foundational principle of an immutable, neutral ledger, forcing developers, miners, and investors to weigh the long-term consequences for Bitcoin's core value proposition.
