Adam Back and Michael Saylor Oppose BIP 110 as Bitcoin Fork Risk Grows

July 12, 2026 — Blockstream co-founder Adam Back and Strategy founder Michael Saylor have publicly opposed BIP 110, a proposed temporary soft fork for Bitcoin that critics say could split the network. Back warned the proposal attempts to police transactions users choose to send, contradicting Bitcoin’s decentralized and permissionless design. Saylor called the plan “extremely dangerous,” cautioning it could turn a spam dispute into a dangerous consensus change.

Immediate Details & Direct Quotes

The opposition to BIP 110, formally called the Reduced Data Temporary Softfork, centers on concerns it would restrict certain transaction types for approximately one year. The proposal would apply extra consensus rules limiting large data fields, some Taproot features, and several methods used to embed images or other files inside Bitcoin transactions.

“The plan attempts to police other people’s transactions,” Back said in comments summarized by Wu Blockchain on July 12. He warned that supporters could create a separate chain if they enforce rules without broad agreement from the community.

Saylor reinforced these concerns in his public statement. “BIP 110 turns a spam dispute into a consensus change that would reject some transactions that Bitcoin currently accepts,” he said. Saylor argued developers should focus on larger threats rather than pursuing the temporary soft fork.

Market Context & Reaction

Miner signaling for BIP 110 remains far below the proposal’s required activation threshold. Reporting published July 12 indicated miner signaling stood at zero in the active period and had never exceeded approximately 1% in earlier periods. No major mining pool has publicly supported the proposal.

BIP 110 uses a modified activation process requiring miners to signal support in 1,109 of 2,016 blocks, equal to 55%. The specification sets mandatory signaling before block 963,648 and activation at block 965,664, expected around September 1, 2026. The temporary rules would then remain active for roughly one year.

Without broad adoption, nodes enforcing BIP 110 could follow a minority chain while other nodes continue accepting existing transaction rules. Exchanges, wallets, miners, and node operators now face an August planning window to decide which software and rules they will support.

Background & Historical Context

Bitcoin developer Luke Dashjr continues to back BIP 110 despite the opposition. A July 6 crypto.news report said Dashjr rejected calls to withdraw the proposal and stated, “It’s too late to cancel BIP110.” He argues Ordinals, Runes, and similar uses place non-financial data on Bitcoin and raise long-term costs for storing and serving the blockchain.

The official BIP 110 specification keeps OP_RETURN outputs within an 83-byte limit and restricts several payloads to 256 bytes. Supporters say these limits would reduce data storage demands on node operators while keeping the network focused on money. The proposal exempts UTXOs created before activation, so existing outputs remain spendable under old rules.

Earlier reports noted Back had responded to supporters who claimed discussion channels had blocked the proposal. Back rejected that claim, saying many participants had already reviewed the plan. Low node support and no clear backing from major mining pools characterized that stage.

What This Means

The outcome of BIP 110 will depend on software adoption, miner signaling, and user decisions across the Bitcoin network. If the proposal fails to gain the required 55% miner support before September, it will not activate, and the current rules remain unchanged.

Short-term, exchanges and wallet providers must prepare for the August planning window to determine which software they will support. Long-term, the debate highlights growing tensions between those who want to limit non-financial Bitcoin usage and those who insist fee-paying users should decide how block space is used.

Without broad consensus, the risk of a chain split remains real, though the near-zero miner signaling suggests the proposal faces an uphill battle. The community continues to weigh whether temporary data restrictions solve a genuine problem or undermine Bitcoin’s permissionless nature.

—