BIP110 For The Win

(Even When It Does Not Activate)

BIP110 related meme

Intro

MyLegacyKit is still the pseudonym of writer and Bitcoin researcher Arthur van Pelt, previously known for his around 50 mostly long form articles mapping out the Craig “I am not Satoshi Nakamoto” Wright identity fraud. Wright’s claim to be Satoshi turned out to be a lie “founded on an elaborate false narrative and backed by forgery of documents on an industrial scale” as narrated by COPA’s lead barrister, Jonathan Hough KC, during the opening arguments of the COPA v Wright trial on February 5, 2024. This exact narrative was practically fully adopted by Justice Mellor in his May 2024 judgment, who wrote:

The evidence is fabricated and/or based on documents I am satisfied have been forged on a grand scale by Dr Wright. I am entirely satisfied that Dr Wright lied to the Court extensively and repeatedly. All his lies and forged documents were in support of his biggest lie: his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.

In hindsight, it is completely fair to say that my full body of work has been summarized in Justice Mellor his judgment.

This article however is about how to restore Bitcoin’s monetary primacy by temporary rules and permanent principles with BIP110. It intends to give a truthful and relevant history in chapter 1, the state of the Bitcoin community as we speak in chapter 2, while chapter 3 contains a plea for activation of BIP110.

This is my first article with help of AI (Grok), and you will likely recognize that in several paragraphs, and the few hyphens that I purposely left unedited. Using AI, writing a detailed prompt and editing the resulting paragraph to my likings is as I see it enhancing my content, both in writing style as in researched facts. At all times, it is my content for which I take full responsibility.

Buckle up, here we go.

Chapter 1: The History of BIP110, A Response to Bitcoin Core v30

Bitcoin as a digital monetary protocol has always been balancing its technical flexibility with its core mission of being a “peer to peer electronic cash system”, as the titel of Bitcoin’s design document indicates. Bitcoin is by far by most recognized as an internet protocol that is handling, settling and storing monetary transactions. Bitcoin therefore builds status and reputation since January 2009 as a store of value, as a means of exchange, as an unit of account… and Bitcoin will ultimately become global reserve currency, because all globally-perceived-as-sound money do that, like the US Dollar, like gold and, long time ago, the British Pound, the Dutch Guilder and the Spanish silver ‘real de a ocho’ (Piece of Eight).

Bitcoin becoming reserve currency is a vision that I have since 2012, and it is a dream, a vision, that I no doubt share with many bitcoiners, old and new. Bitcoin would be the first digital, decentralized, immutable, permissionless and censorship resistant money in the world, fixing the flaws of centralized inflationary fiat currencies and at the same time it would be fixing the flaws of physical gold as store of value and means of exchange.

In other words, simply put: Bitcoin is sound money. And nothing else.

Tensions and trade offs between these monetary features, the urge to maximalize decentralization and on- and offchain scaling priorities have defined many of Bitcoin’s most intense debates. From the Block Size Wars in 2015 to 2017, to SegWit activation in 2017, Taproot going live in 2021 and the always ongoing discussions about privacy in Bitcoin and quantum attack concerns.

But it must be said: the balance, Bitcoin’s equilibrium, the social and technical consensus of Bitcoin, always clearly favored one unique vision, introduced by Satoshi Nakamoto: Bitcoin is sound money. And nothing else.

How do we actually know what Satoshi Nakamoto thought of arbitrary data? Does arbitrary data fall within his vision of Bitcoin being an Electronic Cash System, which we now call sound money? Let’s have a look at his public scribblings. Here are three clear quotes from Satoshi Nakamoto expressing opposition to excessive or arbitrary non-financial data bloating the Bitcoin blockchain.

1. On piling multiple systems/data into one chain (BitDNS discussion, December 10, 2010):

Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn’t scale. Bitcoin and BitDNS can be used separately. Users shouldn’t have to download all of both to use one or the other.

This directly addresses the idea of using the Bitcoin chain as a general data or multi-application storage layer.

2. Continuing in the same post, on differing needs for data/features:

BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it’s easy for lots of users and small devices.

Satoshi obviously anticipated (and aligned with) strong user preference for keeping the chain lean and accessible, rather than loading it with large arbitrary data.

3. On recording messages/data in the blockchain (Oct 23, 2010):

ECDSA can’t encrypt messages, only sign signatures. It would be unwise to have permanently recorded plaintext messages for everyone to see. It would be an accident waiting to happen. If there’s going to be a message system, it should be a separate system parallel to the bitcoin network. Messages should not be recorded in the block chain.

This was in response to a proposal for attaching short messages to Bitcoin transactions. Satoshi obviously favored keeping the chain focused on financial transactions, not general messaging or data storage.

Title of the final Bitcoin whitepaper, published March 2009

BIP110, formally titled “Reduced Data Temporary Softfork” (sometimes referenced in connection with earlier ideas around BIP-444), represents a user- and node-driven technical countermeasure to what many view as a pivotal if not dangerous shift in that balance, caused by a slow straying from the “Bitcoin is sound money. And nothing else.” path.

What pivotal and dangerous change again, you ask?

The roots of the current debate trace back to the rise of Ordinals and inscriptions in early 2023, when users began embedding arbitrary data into Bitcoin transactions using techniques that exploited unused script opcodes and witness data. This led to a surge in non-monetary usage, including BRC-20 tokens, images, and eventually more complex protocols like Runes. Initially dismissed by some as a temporary fad or harmless experiment, these activities grew to consume significant block space, often accounting for 30–50% or more in peak periods according to various on-chain analytics. Node operators reported increased costs for bandwidth, storage, and validation, while monetary transactions faced higher fees during congestion.

Bitcoin Core developers and contributors debated how to respond. Some argued for minimal intervention, relying on the fee market in combination with a limited block size of 4 MB (not 1 MB as some think) to regulate usage and emphasizing “market reality” over prescriptive rules.

Others, including vocal critics like Luke Dashjr, pushed for stricter policy filters in implementations like Bitcoin Knots to combat what they saw as spam. The tension built over years, with incremental policy adjustments failing to stem the tide of data embedding.

Then, in October 2025, Bitcoin Core, issuer of Bitcoin’s reference protocol client, released v30 which introduced one of the most disputed changes in the project’s history: dramatically relaxing the default OP_RETURN data limit (opening the floodgates from roughly 83 bytes to 100,000 bytes or more, effectively aligning with block-size constraints in some relay policies). This policy adjustment directly facilitated larger arbitrary data embedding as a norm instead of as an exception, and this change was therefore, understandably, heavily criticized from the get-go.

Because Bitcoin is according many sound money, and not an immutable arbitrary data storage, with all the risks that come with such use case.

Proponents however, including several Bitcoin Core contributors, described this as acknowledging “market reality,” reducing the need for non-standard transactions, and avoiding any perception of content-based censorship. A public letter signed by dozens of contributors defended the shift.

Critics of the policy change countered that the change is legitimizing and accelerating the use of Bitcoin’s blockchain as a general-purpose data dump, for inscriptions (Ordinals), BRC-20 tokens, images, videos, and protocols like Runes. By facilitating this non-native Bitcoin use case further, Bitcoin Core is imposing extra costs on full node operators, it is inflating chain growth, it is pressuring the UTXO set, it is willingly raising fees for ordinary native monetary transactions, and let’s not forget also: Bitcoin Core is distorting user, miner and developer incentives away from Bitcoin’s monetary primacy.

On-chain analyses are currently showing that spam and unnecessary arbitrary data loads have made the total Bitcoin chain approaching 40% of all block space. And this trend is still growing, with regularly days in Bitcoin that its miners are processing 75% or more non-native Bitcoin transactions that are not related to its core monetary functionality, but instead are only a work around, abusing bugs and flaws in the Bitcoin protocol on the go, to store data spam in the Bitcoin chain.

Parallel to the debates described, Bitcoin has recently seen renewed discussions around quantum computing threats. As of 2025–2026, researchers from Google Quantum AI and others published findings suggesting that breaking Bitcoin’s ECDSA cryptography might require fewer resources than previously thought — potentially as low as 1,200 logical qubits for practical attacks in the future. While not an immediate threat, institutions like BlackRock noted quantum risks in filings, and the community has sometimes heated debates about possible migration paths to post-quantum cryptography. Proposals for quantum-resistant addresses and upgrades have gained attention, highlighting the need for a lean, focused protocol that can coordinate, handle and suggest major consensus changes efficiently to the Bitcoin community when required.

Hodlonaut’s Citadel21 Series: “The Network” and “The Lever”

This moment of Bitcoin Core releasing v30 did of course not occur in a vacuum. Hodlonaut’s investigative series (2 episodes released, 2 more episodes to come) on Citadel21 is providing one of the most detailed accounts of the social and technical dynamics around the release of Bitcoin Core v30.

In “The Network” (March 27, 2026), hodlonaut describes how an informal power structure coalesced around Bitcoin Core through entities like Chaincode Labs, Brink funding, Optech dinners, and related residencies.

“In the autumn of 2025, something very unusual happened on Bitcoin’s network. Bitcoin Knots… surged from around two percent of the network to more than twenty percent… The trigger was a decision by Bitcoin Core maintainer Gloria Zhao to merge a change relaxing the default limits on how much non-financial data could be embedded in op_return outputs…”

The article meticulously traces social connections, funding pipelines, and mentorship networks in rich detail. It begins with an Optech dinner in early 2019 where connections formed that led to residencies and funding opportunities. Hodlonaut examines specific sequences: contributors advancing rapidly through personal introductions, “Feelings Friday” sessions at residencies where emotional and cultural alignment appeared to influence technical decisions, and cases where independent voices faced delays despite strong contributions. A mondboggling number of primary sources — podcasts, emails, IRC logs, and funding timelines — illustrate how a relatively cohesive group shaped maintainer influence and prioritized certain policy changes, including the v30 OP_RETURN relaxation.

In its follow up piece “The Lever” (April 29, 2026), hodlonaut examines dissent management, including pressures on longtime contributor Luke Dashjr. The article frames BIP110 as a necessary grassroots response: a temporary one-year consensus-level soft fork to reassert limits on arbitrary data and node operator sovereignty. It details campaigns around BIP editing, funding decisions, and public characterizations that sidelined critics. Juicy quotes from developer meetings, mailing lists, and public statements illustrate how institutional weight was applied to protect alignment.

These articles, as said before but it bears repeating once more: mindboggling rich with primary sources (podcasts, emails, IRC logs, funding timelines, etc.), underscore BIP110 as a reaction to perceived capture and policy drift that is prioritizing technical flexibility over monetary primacy.

What BIP110 Technically Does

BIP110 introduces a targeted set of temporary consensus rules (active for approximately one year, with possible extension) to invalidate common vectors for large contiguous arbitrary data while grandfathering all pre-activation UTXOs. Key restrictions include output scriptPubKey limits (new outputs capped at 34 bytes, except OP_RETURN up to 83 bytes), data push limits (256 bytes max with exemptions), witness version restrictions, and specific Taproot limitations (annexes, large control blocks, certain OP_SUCCESS and conditional structures). Pre-activation UTXOs are fully exempt; rules expire after ~52,416 blocks.

So the BIP is not solely about OP_RETURN, but it targets multiple abuse vectors (large scriptPubKeys for UTXO bloat, oversized witnesses, Taproot exploits). OP_RETURN’s modest allowance preserves provably unspendable commitments without long-term UTXO burden. Runes and similar protocols can adapt using smaller payloads. Legacy P2PK impacts are limited to new outputs (already rare), with existing holdings grandfathered. This design prioritizes UTXO efficiency and restores historical norms.

Chapter 2: Supporters and Opponents: The Arguments, The Misinformation, and The Twitter Trenches

First, let’s briefly steelman both sides’ main arguments and motivations.

Supporters’ Arguments and Motivations

• Focus on monetary primacy.
• Negative externalities on fees/node costs.
• Preservation of decentralization against hardware barriers.
• Realignment of user/miner/developer incentives.
• Better censorship resistance for actual money transfers.
• Temporary, grandfathered, and reversible nature minimizing risk.

Opponents’ Arguments and Motivations

• Protocol neutrality avoiding content policing.
• Support for innovation and flexibility.
• Risks of activation splits or confusion.
• Preference for fee markets and relay policies.
• Concerns over governance precedents and bypassing Core review.
• Slippery slope for censorship, becoming permissioned money.

The BIP110 debate features fiery rhetoric on both sides, but the least I can say is that BIP110’s narrow, temporary design addresses legitimate technical concerns while defending core Bitcoin principles. Let’s have a look at several loud and prolific parties in the Bitcoin arena, presuming most of my readers are already familiar with Luke Dashjr (bitcoiner since almost forever, main but not only Knots maintainer since early 2011) and Dathon Ohm (anonymous developer and creator of BIP110).

Matt Kratter on BIP110

In his Once Bitten! podcast interview (#612 “Bip 110, Financial Engineering And The Fall Of Bitcoin Core. — Matthew Kratter.” with Daniel Prince), Matthew Kratter (Bitcoin University, former TradFi background) passionately supports BIP110 as a temporary soft fork to pause spam, buy time for the community, and realign Bitcoin toward money. He critiques financial engineering, loan products, rehypothecation, and informal networks enabling Core’s drift. In the second half, Kratter criticizes enablers of unchecked spam and downplaying of node costs, fee impacts, and reputational harm.

On Adam Back, Kratter highlights the irony of Back’s historical anti-spam work (Hashcash) contrasted with opposition to practical corrections. He notes Taproot enabling massive non-monetary use (~90% in some analyses) and calls BIP110 the structurally most conservative path: soft fork, temporary, grandfathered. Kratter emphasizes resisting spam as culturally vital and links it to fighting mining pool centralization.

Must watch, if you ask me.

Renaud Cuny’s Research and Stance

Renaud Cuny is delivering factual and data-driven research via **The Bitcoin Portal and [Blockspace Weekly](https://blockspaceweekly.substack.com)**, quantifying spam (often 35–45%+ of space) and modeling BIP110’s impact. His simulations demonstrate reclaiming substantial block space with zero blockage of legitimate monetary transactions in tested periods. Cuny supports BIP110 for restoring monetary primacy, countering miner centralization incentives from data revenue, and upholding “Node Is Law.” His tools and analyses provide empirical evidence that passive policies failed against sustained spam, making a timed consensus correction essential.

Jameson Lopp’s “A Layman’s Guide to BIP-110”

Long time Bitcoin contributor Jameson Lopp, self-proclaimed cypherpunk and investor in a firm called Citrea who needs Bitcoin to be data spam friendly for the products they are developing, describes BIP110 as “reckless, an attack on Bitcoin and doomed to fail,” citing chain splits, frozen funds, reputational harm, stifled innovation, slippery slopes, and ineffectiveness.

These claims merit a quick rebuttal.

Because BIP110 is a soft-fork tightening of rules with grandfathering and expiry — far less disruptive than claimed. Historical UASFs succeeded; economic signaling via Knots and other nodes demonstrates demand. BIP110 compliant blocks are being mined already by different miners. Meanwhile, simulations have confirmed there is only minimal legitimate impact and maximum data spam rejection impact: over 80% of the spam currently found in the Bitcoin blockchain would not have been there were BIP110 activated say early 2023. On the other hand, Bitcoin Core’s v30 changes proactively expanded data features, diluting the monetary P2P network by encouraging storage growth over payments. BIP110 temporarily corrects this at consensus level, using objective size limits rather than subjective filtering, while users, miners and developers can work together to ossify certain BIP110 components, and sink or expand others.

Honorable mention for GrassFedBitcoin

GrassFedBitoin is one of the most vocal, indepth and consistent defenders of BIP110 on Twitter. His bio even includes “#BIP-110”. He frequently posts data, node stats, and mining blocks signaling BIP110, emphasizing “Nodes Are The Soul Of Bitcoin.”

His strongest recent defense is not a single short tweet, but a detailed, high-engagement podcast and thread-style reaction to a What Bitcoin Did podcast with MrHodl and Wicked. Must watch again, if you ask me.

[embed]

In it, he systematically debunks on the fly opponent arguments, he explains the mechanics of UASF/minority soft forks, he addresses “consensus” claims, and highlights why inaction on data spam is dangerous.

A standout tweet from that context (high likes/reposts, clear defense):

“BIP110 has enough support to not cause a split @MrHodl

Is there a risk anyway? Sure. BIP148 supporters accepted the exact same risk. You are clutching at straws trying to come up with a rationalization for why BIP148 was OK and BIP110 isn’t.

They’re both minority softforks and neither of them had consensus. … the reality is that it does not even need a justification because it is already just by virtue of making Bitcoin self evidently better…”

This tweet (and the thread it belongs to) directly steelmans the UASF precedent, calls out inconsistent criticism, and affirms that BIP110 is improving Bitcoin.

Another strong recent tweet is:

“No one has come up with a good reason why we need BIP-110. Here you go:”

My Twitter Exchanges

The Twitter trenches provide some of the clearest examples of both criticism and detailed defense of BIP110. Two of my most notable exchanges lately stand out, in all humbleness, for illustrating how surface-level attacks of the opponents of BIP110 are often met with technical nuance. Not only by me, but by many others in the Bitcoin Knots and BIP110 camp.

For example, BitMEX Research recently posted:

“BIP-110 also blocks payments to Satoshi’s old P2PK outputs. BIP-110 is beyond stupid”

This tweet, responding to discussions about Runes compatibility of BIP110, highlights a specific technical side effect: the impact on legacy Pay-to-Public-Key (P2PK) outputs. So I replied with a detailed thread and three screenshots explaining the Bitcoin design and why BitMEX is wrong with their assessment.

“BIP110 is actually quite sophisticated. Beyond stupid are most responses of the data spam apologists like you. BIP-110 is aimed at most data spam vectors. It hits large inscriptions and non-OP_RETURN abuse hard, it tolerates limited OP_RETURN (enough only for basic Runes), and incidentally restricts legacy patterns like P2PK but only for new outputs which no one is using anyway.”

Then I explained why BIP110 affects (new) P2PK payments. I quoted the BIP-110 rule:

“New output script PubKeys exceeding 34 bytes are invalid, unless the first opcode is OP_RETURN (up to 83 bytes)”.

I further clarified that legacy P2PK scriptPubKeys consist of a public key (compressed: 33 bytes + OP_CHECKSIG; uncompressed: 65 bytes + OP_CHECKSIG), which often exceeds the new 34-byte limit for non-OP_RETURN outputs. In contrast, modern standard outputs (P2PKH, P2WPKH, P2TR) are typically 20–34 bytes and remain fully compliant. Then I addressed a few important caveats:

• Pre-activation UTXOs (including existing Satoshi-era P2PK outputs) are permanently exempt — no funds are frozen.
• The rule is temporary (1-year soft fork) and expires afterward.
• The primary purpose is to prevent large scriptPubKeys used for data embedding (fake pubkeys or long scripts) that bloat the permanent UTXO set and enable “poison” blocks. Modern monetary use cases have shifted to smaller hashed commitments + witness data.

Lastly, I reinforced that legacy P2PK outputs from early Bitcoin become non-standard only for new creations, while existing ones remain spendable. This is not understood by BitMEX, it seems.

All in all, this response directly debunked the BitMEX “beyond stupid” claim by showing that the restriction is narrow, it is targeted at spam vectors (UTXO bloat), it is grandfathered for history, and temporary — while modern wallets are unaffected.

Another example. Adam Back, yes that Adam Back, who is mentioned in the Bitcoin whitepaper but who has lost the plot somewhat seriously when it comes to the Bitcoin data spam subject, he reposted on June 8, 2026 a graphic provided by an individual called Rod Palmer with the caption:

“the 110 contentious fork in a nutshell”

The undersigned couldn’t help countering:

“It’s so utterly sad to watch Adam Back losing his reputation rapidly these days. BIP110 is not only about OP_RETURN.”

So I clarified that OP_RETURN is indeed explicitly addressed in BIP110 (capped at 83 bytes in consensus rules to restore prior policy after Bitcoin Core’s highly disputed and widely unwanted relaxation), but it is “only one part of a broader set of limits on transaction data”.

BIP110 aims to correct distorted incentives from standardizing too much arbitrary data storage. BIP110 is a wider temporary intervention on multiple ways to add non-financial data. So I listed the several new consensus rules beyond OP_RETURN for Adam Back:

• Output scriptPubKey limits (34 bytes max for new non-OP_RETURN outputs).
• Data push and witness limits (capped, e.g., at 256 bytes).
• Other restrictions invalidating large scriptPubKeys, certain Tapleaf formats, and methods for embedding contiguous arbitrary data larger than ~256 bytes. It also targets other opcodes and structures commonly abused for data embedding.

All in all, I showed BIP110’s sophisticated, multi-vector approach: it tackles large inscriptions, witness abuse, Taproot exploits for data, and UTXO bloat, and not just OP_RETURN. The temporary, grandfathered design minimizes disruption while restoring monetary focus.

Within these exchanges I had with BitMEX and Adam Back, I tried to highlight BIP110’s engineering depth. Critics like these two individuals often reduce BIP110 to a simplistic “anti-Runes” or “anti-OP_RETURN” fork, a non-working solution for an issue that doesn’t exist, while I tried to bring BIP110 as actually a carefully scoped, temporary soft fork addressing the broadest set of spam vectors — which is an undeniable issue — while protecting existing users and allowing adaptation. My responses hopefully turned superficial dismissals into opportunities to educate on the proposal’s thoughtful trade-offs, reinforcing its role as a principled corrective rather than a reckless attack. I pride myself in belonging to a group of people in the Bitcoin arena who do the same. You know who you are, guys!

Oh, and did Adam Back or BitMEX ever bother to reply?

No, so far they did not. Telling.

Chapter 3: A Plea for Supporting BIP110

Bitcoin stands at a crossroads, it seems to me. Drifting toward a “Pepe Dropbox” status puts its monetary soul at risk. BIP110, even through signaling alone, offers a principled corrective. Meanwhile, inaction comes with substantial risks. What are these risks anyway, as far as I can see them?

Technical Risks

Approximately 40% of the current Bitcoin chain data load consists of data spam and non-monetary inscriptions, severely restricting Bitcoin’s decentralization by making it increasingly difficult and expensive for ordinary individuals to run full validating nodes. This sustained high volume of arbitrary data (images, text, tokens, and other embedded content) dramatically increased bandwidth consumption, storage requirements, and CPU load during transaction validation and block processing, which had not been necessary if only we had rejected data spam several years earlier.

New nodes syncing from Bitcoin’s Genesis block now face significantly longer sync times and higher hardware demands, effectively raising the barrier to entry for independent verification. What was once possible on modest consumer hardware, or “small devices” as Satoshi Nakamoto called them, has now become out of reach for over 6 billion people on earth (of which around 3 billion don’t even have generic internet access, which is another burden to tackle on top of the hardware costs).

It was not on my bingo card ever for Bitcoin that it would at some point also require enterprise-grade servers or robust cloud solutions, shifting the network toward greater reliance on well-funded institutions and data centers also for simple full nodes! This type of erosion of Bitcoin’s full node base weakens Bitcoin’s core decentralization and core security model, which depends on tens of thousands of independent economic actors hosting the full Bitcoin blockchain, and who are verifying the incoming Bitcoin blocks with the consensus protocol rule set, and who are signaling for code updates, rather than trusting a much smaller set of only powerful and wealthy players with these tasks.

Furthermore, the persistent UTXO set bloat caused by certain data-embedding techniques creates permanent, non-prunable costs that every full node must bear indefinitely. BIP110 directly addresses these technical risks by implementing temporary but effective consensus limits on the major vectors of large contiguous data, significantly reducing spam load, easing validation costs, shortening sync times, and lowering the hardware threshold for running a sovereign node. By pruning these abuse vectors at the consensus layer for a limited period, BIP110 helps restore the practical decentralization that Bitcoin was designed to maintain.

I’ve developed a new open source P2P e-cash system called Bitcoin. It’s completely decentralized, with no central server or trusted parties, because everything is based on crypto proof instead of trust. […] A lot of people automatically dismiss e-currency as a lost cause because of all the companies that failed since the 1990’s. I hope it’s obvious it was only the centrally controlled nature of those systems that doomed them. I think this is the first time we’re trying a decentralized, non-trust-based system.

— Satoshi Nakamoto, January 2009 on P2PFoundation Forum

Financial Risks

It’s no secret that Bitcoin’s price has lagged its narrative potential in recent months, and it is almost as if the devil himself is playing with us: Bitcoin reached it current all time high around $125,000 on almost the exact same day in October 2025 when Bitcoin Core v30 was released. Bitcoin is as we speak (almost halfway June 2026) approximately 50% down on that price.

Coincidence, you say? Maybe, maybe not. I cannot tell.

What I can tell, though: cluttered blocks divert fee revenue and mindshare from high-value monetary transfers, slowing Bitcoin adoption as digital gold, let alone as reserve asset. Refocusing incentives via BIP110 supports healthier price discovery rooted in scarcity and utility as money, and money only. Sustained spam is as said before, creating artificial scarcity for payment transations, thereby inflating costs for simple sats transfers while subsidizing low-value data. This distorts price signals, perhaps even delays institutional inflows, and weakens Bitcoin’s value proposition relative to its monetary unit scarcity narrative. BIP110 realigns revenues toward monetary utilities, potentially accelerating adoption cycles and supporting stronger long-term price appreciation grounded in sound economics rather than novelty hypes of the next data spam scam.

Over the years, data-heavy transactions have captured significant block share, pressuring fee markets during congestion. Monetary users (remittances, savings, settlements) compete with JPEG storage or token experiments. This diverts capital and attention, slowing network effects. By raising spam friction temporarily, BIP110 shows how to encourage efficient blockchain use, healthier fee dynamics for real monetary value transfers, and a better capital allocation: all key for Bitcoin maturing as a global reserve asset instead of as a Pepe Dropbox with an utility token on the side.

Reputational Risks

Bitcoin is money, not a “Pepe Dropbox.” It is my educated guess that mainstream and institutional observers of the decision making kind, see a chain filled with novelty spam as unserious. Strong BIP110 support signals maturity and commitment to sovereignty and value transfer, further bolstering credibility for nation-state and corporate adoption. Media and regulators increasingly highlight on-chain clutter as evidence of immaturity or misuse. A deliberate correction via BIP110 projects stewardship and seriousness, differentiating Bitcoin from “crypto” experiments and appealing to sovereign wealth funds, corporations, and governments seeking reliable digital money. Without it, perceptions of Bitcoin being a chaotic and random data dump, including for copyrighted, privileged and other illegal material, will undoubtedly erode trust in Bitcoin, and slow down Bitcoin’s integration into global financial systems.

Mind you, all current data spam users of Bitcoin are unironically better off with Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision (BSV), a (hardly adopted) fork of a fork of Bitcoin with almost no restrictions on arbitrary data storage in the BSV blockchain, or with another blockchain project called Arweave!

Legal Risks

Nodes unknowingly hosting/spreading CSAM or illegal content via large data fields face real jurisdictional risks. This is, but should not be, underestimated. Limiting arbitrary payloads shrinks this attack surface, protecting operators and the network’s standing. Arbitrary data enables permanent embedding of harmful content, exposing node runners worldwide to varying legal regimes. Even without active distribution, immutable storage creates liabilities. BIP110’s targeted limits reduce this vector without content inspection, safeguarding decentralized operators and enhancing the network’s legal defensibility as a monetary protocol rather than an unregulated file host.

Social Risks

To fiat observers, Bitcoin looks currently like a chaotic, infighting experiment with tribes calling each other “retard”, ”moron” and “bipcoiner”, unworthy of mainstream consideration. Opponents of BIP110 often appear ignorant, misinformed, disingeneous or hypocritical — paying lip service to the anti-spam narrative while incompetently defending Bitcoin Core v30. BIP110 on the other hand demonstrates user/node agency and unity on Bitcoin’s first principles. Public discourse reveals deep divides; strong BIP110 support rebuilds social cohesion among monetary-focused Bitcoiners, clarifies principles for newcomers, and counters narratives of inevitable “everything app” evolution. It fosters unity around Bitcoin as sound money, making the project more approachable and inspiring for everyday users seeking sovereignty with a store of value, a digital gold. Not with a Pepe Dropbox that everyone can find elsewhere, more suitable, cheaper and better equipped for permanent data hosting.

Economical Risks

Without correction, Bitcoin will as far as I can see it now, struggle toward Reserve Currency status. Spam creates artificial scarcity for payments, premature L2 reliance, and weakened base-layer robustness. BIP110 reinforces sound economic incentives for money, enabling hyperbitcoinization. Unchecked data growth leads to centralizing pressures (larger nodes, specialized hardware), distorts miner incentives toward non-monetary revenue, and risks layering complexity that undermines base-layer security and auditability. A temporary reset strengthens the foundation, supports organic growth of monetary use cases, and positions Bitcoin for broader economic integration — from individual sovereignty to global reserve roles.

Quantum Proofing Benefits

And what not many bitcoiners realize, I think: a data spam-free Bitcoin strengthens its quantum resilience. It is therefore quite ironical to see individuals as Adam Back and Jameson Lopp, both heavily invested in making Bitcoin quantum resilient, still being data spam apologists.

Cleaner blocks and focused monetary usage is reducing Bitcoin’s quantum attack surfaces, plus they simplify future migrations to post-quantum cryptography. A bloated chain with massive non-monetary data complicates consensus upgrades needed for quantum safety, raises coordination costs, and risks prioritizing further arbitrary data storage over security-critical changes. By refocusing on sound money and sound money alone, BIP110 keeps the protocol lean and mean (as Satoshi Nakamoto intended, I would like to add), auditable, and adaptable — essential for implementing quantum-resistant signatures without disruption from data bloat.

This aligns long-term Bitcoin security with Bitcoin’s monetary primacy, meanwhile addressing the centralized influence of enterprises who need Bitcoin to be arbitrary data friendly for their short term profits.

And make no mistake, all these risks interconnect: financial underperformance fuels reputational skepticism, amplifying legal and social challenges while hindering economic and technical scaling of Bitcoin. BIP110 empowers a corrective reset. BIP110 addresses the root of the data spam issue by restoring Bitcoin’s balance as a technical flexible platform while remaining true to its core mission of being a “peer to peer digital cash system” through user-driven, temporary rules.

Another BIP110 related meme

Summary

BIP110 wins by refocusing Bitcoin on its highest purpose — and even signaling without activation has already value in the big picture.

Run Knots. Signal BIP110. Bitcoin is money, not a Pepe Dropbox. BIP110 For The Win.

With the activation of BIP110, Bitcoin remains neutral, permissionless, and censorship resistant, because it enforces objective, size-based limits on data embedding vectors temporarily, without content inspection. Monetary transactions continue unhindered; while data spam faces predictable friction. This protects node sovereignty, UTXO efficiency, and the peer-to-peer monetary network while preserving permissionless innovation within restored norms.

Even when BIP110 is not going to activate, this period since the release of Bitcoin Core v30 in October 2025 has still been very fruitful: the bitcoiners have been separated from the data spam apologists, and the BIP110 fans will no doubt come back with even more social consensus and an even more sophisticated technical solution.

Thanks for reading, guys.

Sources and Links:

• BIP110 Specification: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0110.mediawiki and https://bip110.org/
• Bitcointalk Bitcoin Forum
• Hodlonaut “The Network”: https://www.citadel21.com/the-network
• Hodlonaut “The Lever”: https://www.citadel21.com/the-lever
• Bitcoin Core v30 OP_RETURN changes: https://bitcoincore.org/en/releases/30.0/ and related coverage
• Jameson Lopp’s Guide: https://blog.lopp.net/a-laymans-guide-to-bip-110/
• Matt Kratter Once Bitten Interview: Search “Once Bitten Matthew Kratter BIP110” (episode #612)
• Quantum discussions: Various 2025–2026 reports from Google Quantum AI, Coindesk, etc.
• Arthur van Pelt and related tweets: Referenced X posts on BIP110 debates.