Zero Miner Support, Yet Still Alive: The Ongoing Battle Over Bitcoin’s BIP-110

BIP-110 has gained almost no traction among Bitcoin miners, yet its user-activated framework means the proposal is still progressing toward its scheduled rollout and may continue shaping discussions around Bitcoin governance.

Bitcoin is nearing an uncommon consensus event this weekend, as a small number of nodes prepare to reject blocks created by the overwhelming majority of miners on the network.

The Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP)-110, which aims to temporarily reduce the amount of non-transaction data allowed on Bitcoin’s blockchain, is approaching its mandatory signaling phase, expected to begin around Aug. 9. If the proposal advances, enforcement would start at block 965,664, which is projected to occur roughly a month later.

The proposal’s original requirement of 55% miner signaling support now appears effectively unattainable.

Bitcoin’s security model depends on both miners and nodes, though their responsibilities differ. Miners produce new blocks and add them to the blockchain, while nodes verify those blocks against Bitcoin’s consensus rules and decide whether they should be accepted.

From a miner-support perspective, BIP-110 appears unlikely to succeed. With fewer than 3% of mining pools signaling support and the activation window approaching, the proposal would likely fail if Bitcoin governance were determined solely by mining approval.

However, BIP-110 advocates argue that Bitcoin’s decentralized architecture allows users to independently enforce changes by running modified node software, even without backing from miners.

Dathon Ohm, the pseudonymous creator of BIP-110, has described the effort as a grassroots movement led by Bitcoin users who want to prevent influential organizations from directing the network’s future.

In a recent post on X, Ohm outlined steps for miners who wish to support the proposal. He recommended switching to Bitcoin Knots, the main implementation designed around BIP-110, and argued that Bitcoin Core, the network’s most widely used client, would become unsuitable under the proposed rules.

The proposal focuses on limiting inscription-based activities such as Ordinals and Runes by temporarily reducing their ability to consume block space. Supporters claim these uses increase transaction costs, place additional burdens on node operators, and move Bitcoin away from its intended role as decentralized peer-to-peer money.

Opponents argue that weak miner support demonstrates the proposal lacks legitimacy and momentum. Supporters respond that miners are not the ultimate authority in Bitcoin’s governance process, as they only create blocks while nodes determine whether those blocks comply with consensus rules.

BIP-110 follows the concept of a user-activated soft fork (UASF), where node operators enforce new rules at a specific block height without waiting for miner approval.

A similar strategy was used during Bitcoin’s 2017 SegWit activation, when users pushed forward with the upgrade despite resistance from some miners. The SegWit change later enabled technologies like Ordinals and Runes, which BIP-110 now seeks to restrict.

Once block 961,632 is reached, nodes running BIP-110-compatible software will begin rejecting blocks that fail to meet the proposal’s requirements, even if those blocks remain accepted by the wider network.

If some miners follow BIP-110 rules while others continue using the existing protocol, Bitcoin could experience a chain split. The alternative chain would likely begin with only a small portion of the network’s total hash rate.

Whether such a minority chain could gain long-term support remains uncertain. Many observers consider a successful split unlikely, but some cryptocurrency exchanges are preparing for possible disruptions by temporarily suspending deposits and withdrawals during the activation period.

The situation highlights that Bitcoin consensus is not controlled by miners or nodes alone. Exchanges, wallets, developers, and users also play a crucial role in determining which version of the network gains acceptance.

BIP-110 has also failed to attract widespread support from several prominent Bitcoin advocates, including Michael Saylor and Adam Back, who have criticized the proposal.

Critics argue that Bitcoin’s strength comes from its resistance to major consensus changes and that block space should be allocated through market-based demand and transaction fees.

Supporters of BIP-110 disagree, saying the proposal is not an attempt to rewrite Bitcoin but rather a move to preserve its original purpose. They believe users have the right to reject changes that could alter the network’s intended direction.

Regardless of whether it succeeds, BIP-110 could have lasting effects beyond the current dispute over Ordinals, Runes, and block space usage.

The proposal’s ultimate test will come from real-world adoption rather than online debate. If BIP-110 nodes begin rejecting the dominant chain, the crucial question will be whether enough miners, exchanges, and users choose to support the alternative network and help it survive.