Nakamoto founder David Bailey announced that the BIP 110 proposal prepared for the Bitcoin network will no longer be advanced. The withdrawal of the proposal, which was planned to be implemented within a few weeks, has brought to the fore a technical and governance debate that has been going on for months in the Bitcoin community.
What did BIP 110 aim for?
BIP 110, aka Reduced Data Temporary Softfork, was brought forward by developer Dathon Ohm in December 2025. The proposal aimed to limit the amount of data added to Bitcoin transactions and deemed unnecessary. Supporters argued that such data could undermine the network’s money transfer function and make running nodes more costly.
Mini dictionary: Soft fork refers to a backward compatible rule change in the blockchain. A node is a participant that runs software that verifies transactions and blocks in the Bitcoin network and contributes to the security and decentralized structure of the network.
The draft stipulated a 34 byte limit for new transaction outputs and an 83 byte ceiling for some data types. These technical limitations were planned to be valid for one year; It was stated that old coins will not be affected by this change.
While David Bailey said that he saw this failed soft fork attempt as extremely positive for Bitcoin, he also described the campaign behind the cancellation process as a hostile takeover attempt.
Support remained weak, objections grew
Although the proposal was discussed for months, it failed to garner enough support. As of February, less than 10 percent of Bitcoin nodes favored BIP 110. None of the top 20 mining pools have joined the initiative.
Bailey explained this picture not with indifference but with a strong rejection of the basic approach of the proposal. Defining the debate as information warfare, Bailey suggested that some developers were trying to pull the network to their own lines.
BitMEX Research warned that the proposed changes could create incompatibility in wallets, disrupt commonly used tools, and cause some users to face loss of funds.
The criticisms did not end there. Some experts have argued that data limits may not be enough to stop unwanted transactions. It was also stated that such a step carries the risk of separating the Bitcoin network into two different versions, which could lead to results similar to the separations seen in the past examples of Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV.
Old debate reignited in the community
The disagreement over data usage in Bitcoin is not new. Some people think that writing too much data to the chain unnecessarily bloats the network and makes it difficult for individuals to run nodes. Those on the other side argue that these limitations can suppress innovation and can be technically easily overcome.
Martin Habovstiak uploaded a 66-kilobyte image to show that large files could be written to the blockchain even under the new limits. The removal of some data limits that had been applied for a long time with a software update made in October last year also escalated the debate. Following this development, some users turned to Bitcoin Knots. As of February, Knots accounted for nearly a quarter of all Bitcoin nodes.
Network fragmentation and processing load concerns are on the agenda
Although BIP 110 has been shelved, the debate is not over. Some maintain the view that data-intensive features such as ordinals and runes could increase transaction fees and strengthen regulatory pressure. These transactions currently account for more than 67 percent of total transfers on the network.
| Title | Data |
|---|---|
| BIP 110 support | Below 10 percent as of February |
| Top 20 mining pools | No participation |
| Bitcoin Knots share | About a quarter |
| Ordinals and runes operations | over 67 percent |
On the other hand, the possibility that a small group of nodes and miners will try to activate BIP 110 on their own is not completely eliminated. Such a scenario could bring about two parallel versions of Bitcoin, one enforcing stricter data rules and the other preserving the current structure.
For now, it is considered that the possibility of wallet incompatibility or network fragmentation has decreased. However, the possibility that the next technical proposal will reactivate similar fault lines remains on the table.
