A major governance dispute has erupted within the Bitcoin community over a controversial soft fork proposal known as BIP-110, with Blockstream CEO Adam Back emerging as a leading critic warning of severe risks to the network's foundational principles.
The proposal, BIP-110 ("Reduced Data Temporary Softfork"), was introduced in December 2025 by pseudonymous developer Dathon Ohm. It aims to restrict the amount of arbitrary data stored directly on the Bitcoin blockchain by filtering certain transaction types at the consensus level. This directly targets protocols like Ordinals and Runes, created by Casey Rodarmor, which allow users to inscribe data such as images and files onto individual satoshis.
Supporters argue that these data-heavy activities, which surged in popularity starting in 2022, increase blockchain size, strain network resources for node operators, and distort Bitcoin's primary purpose as a financial settlement layer. BIP-110 proposes a temporary twelve-month soft fork to limit data fields, with an activation threshold of roughly 55% network agreement—significantly lower than Bitcoin's historical requirement for near-unanimous miner support.
Adam Back has launched a fierce public campaign against BIP-110, declaring it "dead on arrival." In a March 15, 2026 tweet, Back stated the proposal is "an intentional literal downgrade" that "breaks userspace," warning it could freeze unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs), break Miniscript, disable OP_IF, and disable upgrade hooks. He argues that filtering transactions at the consensus layer introduces censorship risks and weakens Bitcoin's core neutrality, as it allows a group to "judge and control which scripts or use cases can be built."
The opposition is broad-based. Security expert Jameson Lopp, Casa's chief security officer, warned that the proposal invites greater regulatory pressure by demonstrating Bitcoin can be changed by pressuring a few entities. He described it as a "slippery slope to centralization and control" that could lead to a damaging chain split, reminiscent of past forks like Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV). Mining pool operator Wang Chun and cryptographer Peter Todd have also voiced strong reservations.
Critics highlight several fundamental flaws. They argue the subjective definition of "spam" introduces governance complications, the lower activation threshold heightens the risk of a blockchain split creating competing network versions, and the temporary nature of the fork is problematic. Furthermore, a demonstration by Martin Habovštiak, who broadcast a 66 KB image of BIP-110 supporter Luke Dashjr on-chain, showed the proposed restrictions are technically bypassable.
The debate has expanded into a wider philosophical clash about Bitcoin's future. One camp, including Ohm, seeks to "refocus priorities on improving Bitcoin as money." The opposing camp, led by figures like Back and Lopp, insists that "Bitcoin is not simply money, it is programmable money," and its neutrality and permissionless nature must be preserved, even for non-monetary use cases, as long as users pay the requisite fees.
