BIP-110 has attracted almost no support from miners, but because it relies on a user-activated model, the proposal is continuing toward its planned activation schedule and could remain a significant topic even after the deadline passes.

Bitcoin is approaching a rare consensus challenge this weekend, with a small group of nodes preparing to reject blocks generated by nearly all of the network’s miners.

The Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP)-110, a controversial proposal designed to temporarily restrict the amount of non-transaction data stored on Bitcoin’s blockchain, is expected to enter its mandatory signaling phase around Aug. 9. If activated, enforcement would begin at block 965,664, which is estimated to be reached approximately one month later.

The proposal’s required 55% miner signaling threshold now appears highly unlikely to be achieved.

Bitcoin’s network relies on both miners and nodes, but they serve different purposes. Miners are responsible for producing new blocks, while nodes independently verify transactions and blocks to ensure they follow Bitcoin’s consensus rules. Ultimately, nodes decide which blocks are accepted.

By traditional standards, BIP-110 faces an uphill battle. With miner support below 3% and little time remaining before signaling begins, the proposal would appear defeated if approval were based solely on mining power.

However, supporters argue that Bitcoin’s decentralized structure allows users to independently adopt software that enforces their preferred rules, regardless of miner support.

Dathon Ohm, the anonymous developer behind BIP-110, has presented the proposal as a user-driven effort against what he describes as growing influence from powerful entities seeking to shape Bitcoin’s future.

In a recent X post, Ohm shared instructions for miners interested in supporting BIP-110. He encouraged them to switch to Bitcoin Knots, the main implementation supporting the proposal, while warning that Bitcoin Core, the network’s dominant software client, would not properly operate under the new rules.

BIP-110 aims to temporarily tighten restrictions around inscription-related activity, including Ordinals and Runes, by reducing the amount of block space available for such uses. Supporters claim these applications increase network costs, make running nodes more difficult, and divert Bitcoin from its primary purpose as decentralized digital money.

Critics argue that the proposal’s lack of miner backing demonstrates that it has little chance of succeeding. Supporters counter that miners are not the final authority in Bitcoin governance because they only create blocks, while nodes decide whether those blocks comply with consensus rules.

The proposal follows the philosophy of user-activated soft forks (UASFs), which allow node operators to enforce new consensus rules at a predetermined block height without requiring miner approval.

The same approach played a role in Bitcoin’s 2017 SegWit upgrade, when users pushed for activation despite opposition from some miners. SegWit later enabled developments such as Ordinals and Runes, the very technologies BIP-110 now seeks to limit.

At block 961,632, nodes running BIP-110 software are expected to begin rejecting blocks that do not follow the proposal’s rules, even if those blocks remain valid under the broader network’s existing consensus.

If only a portion of miners adopt the changes while others continue operating under current rules, Bitcoin could potentially split into separate chains. The BIP-110 chain would likely start with significantly less hash power than the existing network.

The survival of such a minority chain remains uncertain, and many analysts believe a lasting split is unlikely. Still, some crypto exchanges are preparing for possible disruptions by temporarily pausing deposits and withdrawals around the activation period, emphasizing that Bitcoin’s consensus depends on coordination among miners, nodes, exchanges, developers, wallets, and users.

BIP-110 has also struggled to gain support from major Bitcoin figures outside the mining industry, with critics including Michael Saylor and Adam Back opposing the proposal.

Opponents argue that Bitcoin’s security depends on maintaining a high barrier to consensus changes and that block space should be allocated naturally through market demand and transaction fees.

Supporters of BIP-110 take the opposite view, arguing that the proposal does not alter Bitcoin’s foundation but instead protects its original mission. They believe users have the authority to reject software changes they see as harmful to the network’s long-term direction.

Regardless of the outcome, BIP-110 could have broader consequences beyond the current dispute over Ordinals, Runes, and block space.

The proposal’s real impact will be determined by network adoption rather than online debate. If BIP-110 nodes reject the dominant chain, the key question will be whether enough miners, exchanges, and users choose to support the alternative network and allow it to continue operating.