What Is BIP-110?
Bitcoin's big spam debate, simply explained. If you saw Bitcoiners arguing loudly in the summer of 2026, this is probably why. Here's the whole thing in plain language, both sides, no shouting.
Update, August 2026: it didn't happen
BIP-110 needed 55% of miners to vote for it. At its peak, about 2.5% did, nearly all from one mining pool. When its deadline arrived on August 8, the few nodes enforcing it split off onto their own chain. That chain produced two blocks and stopped. The real Bitcoin kept going as if nothing had happened, and for everyone else, nothing had. The rest of this article explains what the fight was about, which is still worth knowing.
The short answer
BIP-110 was a proposal to change Bitcoin's rules so that transactions could carry much less extra data, roughly enough room for a payment and a short note, but not an image or a token collection. Supporters call that data spam and want it squeezed out. Opponents say fees already make spammers pay their way, and that changing Bitcoin's rules to police content is more dangerous than the spam itself.
It never came close to enough support from miners, and it failed to activate in August 2026. But the argument around it says a lot about how Bitcoin works, which is why it still matters.
First: what's a “BIP”?
BIP stands for Bitcoin Improvement Proposal. It's a numbered document anyone can write suggesting a change to how Bitcoin works. A BIP is not a law and not a command. Nobody is in charge of Bitcoin, so a proposal only becomes reality if an overwhelming share of the network chooses to adopt it. Most BIPs are quietly technical. Once in a while, one touches a nerve.
BIP-110 touched a nerve.
What started the argument
Bitcoin's blockchain is a shared record that everyone running the software stores forever. It was designed to record payments, but with some cleverness you can tuck other data into transactions: pictures, text, even entire token collections. In recent years, techniques with names like Ordinals, inscriptions, and Runes made this easy, and popular.
To fans, these are digital artifacts etched into the most secure record ever built. To critics, they're graffiti: data that has nothing to do with money, bloating a ledger that every node operator on Earth has to store, forever.
Bitcoiners have argued about this for years, politely and otherwise. BIP-110 escalates the argument by proposing to change Bitcoin's consensus rules (the rules every participant enforces) to shut most of it out.
What BIP-110 would actually do
Published under a pseudonym in early 2026, the proposal sets seven rules that cap how much arbitrary data fits in a transaction. The technical limits (34 bytes for most new outputs, 83 for a data field called OP_RETURN, 256 for individual data pushes) translate to something simple: enough room to move money and attach a short note, not enough to embed a JPEG.
Two design choices matter. First, it's temporary by default: the rules expire about a year after activation unless renewed. Second, its activation path is unusually aggressive. If 55% of mining power signaled support during a voting window in August 2026, the rules would lock in. Either way, nodes enforcing the proposal would reject blocks that didn't go along. That last part is why even some people who dislike spam opposed this particular proposal, and it's exactly what caused the brief split described above.
The case for it
Supporters, including the mining pool Ocean, which produced nearly all of the yes votes, argue that Bitcoin has one job: being the world's most secure money. Every megabyte of pictures and tokens makes the blockchain heavier, which makes running a node harder, which slowly pushes Bitcoin toward being verifiable only by companies with big servers. Keeping the chain lean, they argue, protects the little guy's ability to verify their own money, which is the whole point.
The one-year expiry is their olive branch: try it, see if Bitcoin is better off, let it lapse if not.
The case against it
Opponents, including longtime developers like Adam Back, make three main arguments. First, it likely won't work: data smugglers adapt, and Back calls the proposal technically defective because determined embedders can route around every one of its rules. Second, fees already handle this: anyone stuffing pictures into blocks pays the same market rate as everyone else, so spam funds Bitcoin's security. Third, and most seriously: once Bitcoin changes its consensus rules to filter content someone dislikes, a precedent exists. Who decides what counts as spam next time?
There was also the split risk. Because BIP-110's activation design rejected non-complying blocks, a determined minority could end up forking themselves onto a separate, smaller chain. In August 2026, that's what happened, on a tiny scale: the breakaway chain managed two blocks before it stalled.
Haven't we been here before?
Yes, and that history is oddly comforting. In 2017, Bitcoin went through the “block size wars,” a much bigger fight about how large blocks should be. It was loud, it was bitter, and Bitcoin came through it fine: the network kept running, nobody's coins went anywhere, and the disagreeing minority split off into an altcoin that faded.
Loud public arguments are what it looks like when a system with no CEO makes decisions. The hard part — getting almost everyone to agree before anything changes — is exactly what makes Bitcoin trustworthy.
What this means for you
Practically, nothing changed. Your bitcoin was safe the whole time, your wallet kept working, and you didn't need to vote, upgrade, or move anything. The debate about extra data carries on, on X and in developer mailing lists, and it will likely come back as new proposals. When it does, the same calm approach applies.
Nobody, not miners, not developers, not billionaires, can change Bitcoin's rules without convincing nearly everyone. You just watched that defense system work in real time.
Where I land
I'm not in favor of BIP-110, and I hold that view gently. I don't love seeing the blockchain used as a storage locker, but the fee market already charges spammers rent, and history says filters lose the cat-and-mouse game anyway. Changing Bitcoin's consensus rules to police content feels like a bigger risk than the spam it's aimed at.
Plenty of thoughtful people I respect land on the other side. That's allowed. Bitcoin doesn't need us to agree, it only needs us to keep verifying.
Common questions
Will BIP-110 affect the bitcoin I already own?
No. Your bitcoin stays yours no matter how this debate ends. BIP-110 is about what kinds of new transactions the network accepts, it does not touch anyone's existing coins.
Do I need to do anything as a regular Bitcoin user?
No. Your wallet keeps working either way. Debates like this play out between developers, miners, and people who run nodes. Watching from the sidelines is a perfectly good place to be.
What are inscriptions and Ordinals?
Techniques for storing extra data (images, text, tokens) inside Bitcoin transactions. Fans see digital artifacts on the most secure network in the world. Critics see clutter that has nothing to do with money.
Did BIP-110 split Bitcoin into two chains?
Barely. In August 2026 the small group of nodes enforcing BIP-110 broke away onto their own chain, which produced two blocks and then stalled, because almost no miners went with them. Bitcoin itself kept running normally the whole time. Nobody's coins were affected, and wallets didn't need to do anything.
Is BIP-110 over?
As a rule change, yes, it failed to activate. The argument about extra data on the blockchain is not over, and new proposals keep coming. Expect to hear about it again in some form.