Bitcoin has survived another fascinating test of decentralized consensus.
For months, a controversial proposal called BIP-110, also known as the Reduced Data Temporary Softfork (RDTS), has divided parts of the Bitcoin community.
Supporters wanted to protect Bitcoin from becoming a permanent storage layer for arbitrary data.
Critics warned that attempting to enforce these restrictions without broad miner consensus could create something potentially more dangerous than the problem it was trying to solve:
«A chain split.»
And now we have reached the moment everyone was waiting for.
What is BIP-110?
BIP-110 proposes temporarily restricting the amount of arbitrary data that can be embedded into Bitcoin transactions.
The restrictions are intended to last approximately one year.
The motivation behind the proposal is closely connected to the debate surrounding Ordinals, inscriptions, tokens and other protocols that use Bitcoin block space for purposes beyond transferring money.
Supporters argue that Bitcoin's blockchain is primarily supposed to function as a monetary settlement network — not as an expensive decentralized file-storage system.
Their argument can essentially be summarized as:
«Bitcoin is money. Block space should primarily be used for Bitcoin.»
BIP-110 therefore introduces consensus-level restrictions on several methods of storing arbitrary data.
More information:
Why Did This Become So Controversial?
Because there is another fundamental Bitcoin principle involved:
«Who gets to decide which valid transactions belong on Bitcoin?»
Opponents argue that if someone creates a transaction that follows Bitcoin's consensus rules and pays the required transaction fee, the network should not decide whether the transaction is sufficiently "monetary."
From this perspective, trying to classify some transactions as legitimate and others as spam moves Bitcoin toward censorship.
Supporters see exactly the opposite danger.
They argue that unlimited arbitrary-data usage increases blockchain growth, raises costs for node operators and potentially changes the incentives surrounding Bitcoin's base layer.
So underneath the technical arguments lies a much bigger philosophical question:
«What is Bitcoin actually supposed to be?»
Then Things Became Much More Serious
BIP-110 did something unusual.
Instead of waiting indefinitely for overwhelming miner support, its activation mechanism included a mandatory signaling phase.
The important block was:
Block 961,632
Before that point, miners could voluntarily signal support using version bit 4.
An early lock-in required 55% of blocks within a 2,016-block difficulty period.
But miner support never came anywhere close to that level.
And this created the scenario critics had warned about.
Block 961,632 Arrived
At block 961,632, BIP-110-enforcing nodes entered the mandatory signaling phase.
Those nodes began rejecting blocks that did not signal BIP-110.
But most miners continued mining Bitcoin exactly as before.
The result was predictable:
«The normal Bitcoin chain continued producing blocks while the BIP-110 enforcing chain fell behind.»
The gap quickly became visible.
In other words:
Hashrate decided the first round.
Without sufficient miners producing BIP-110-compatible blocks, nodes enforcing the new rules cannot magically create blocks themselves.
A full node can reject a block.
It cannot provide Proof-of-Work.
And that distinction turned out to be extremely important.
Is BIP-110 Dead?
Technically, the story is more complicated than simply saying:
«"BIP-110 failed."»
Its planned activation mechanism continues through additional stages.
The schedule calls for lock-in no later than block:
963,648
followed by activation of the actual data restrictions at:
965,664
The restrictions are then intended to eventually expire after roughly one year.
But economically, the events around block 961,632 demonstrated the central problem.
If the overwhelming majority of Bitcoin's Proof-of-Work continues building another chain, a small collection of enforcing nodes cannot simply declare their chain to be Bitcoin.
Bitcoin consensus is not controlled exclusively by developers.
It is not controlled exclusively by miners.
And it is not controlled exclusively by node operators.
It emerges from the interaction between:
That messy coordination is actually one of Bitcoin's greatest defenses.
What About Lightning?
This was particularly interesting for Lightning Network node operators.
BIP-110 itself does not fundamentally break normal Lightning transactions.
Standard Lightning channel transactions fit within the proposed restrictions.
The danger was the possible chain split.
Lightning depends on the Bitcoin blockchain for:
If different Bitcoin nodes disagree about which blockchain represents valid Bitcoin history, Lightning nodes can find themselves in a particularly uncomfortable situation.
Amboss highlighted precisely this risk before the mandatory signaling period began.
Their analysis can be found here:
https://amboss.tech/blog/bip110-lightning-network
For Lightning operators, therefore, the most important issue was never arbitrary data.
It was:
«CONSENSUS STABILITY»
Bitcoin Passed Another Governance Test
Whatever side of the BIP-110 debate you support, I think this episode demonstrates something extremely valuable about Bitcoin.
There is no CEO who can push an update.
There is no foundation that can declare a new consensus rule.
There is no developer who can press an "activate" button.
And simply running software that rejects the existing chain doesn't automatically convince the rest of the network to follow you.
Bitcoin consensus has to be earned.
That makes changing Bitcoin frustratingly difficult.
But that difficulty is also a feature.
If changing the monetary rules of Bitcoin were easy, governments, corporations, developers or wealthy individuals could eventually change them too.
«The resistance to change protects the system.»
The Bigger Question Remains
BIP-110 may lose this particular battle, but the problem that created it has not disappeared.
Bitcoin still has to deal with an uncomfortable question:
«Should Bitcoin block space be completely neutral, allowing any consensus-valid transaction that pays the fee?»
Or:
«Should Bitcoin actively protect its monetary purpose by discouraging or restricting arbitrary data?»
There are legitimate arguments on both sides.
And I suspect this debate is far from over.
What happened around block 961,632 may eventually become another interesting chapter in Bitcoin's long history of governance disputes.
But once again Bitcoin demonstrated something remarkable:
You can propose new rules.
You can write the code.
You can run the software.
But you cannot force decentralized consensus.
And perhaps that is exactly how Bitcoin should work.
What do you think?
Should Bitcoin remain completely neutral toward every valid transaction that pays the fee?
Or should the network actively defend Bitcoin's role as money against arbitrary data storage?
Let me know in the comments.
Further Reading
BIP-110:
BIP-110 Fork FAQ:
https://fork-talk.github.io/faq/forks/bip-110.html
Amboss – BIP-110 and the Lightning Network:
https://amboss.tech/blog/bip110-lightning-network
#bitcoin #btc #bip110 #lightning #lightningnetwork #blockchain #decentralization #cryptocurrency #hive
