The BIP110 Saga: What It Means and Why It’s Bitcoin’s Biggest Test Yet

Over the past few days, something quite unusual has happened around Bitcoin.

After months of debate, part of the community decided to change the network's rules. The rest did not follow, and for a brief period, two different versions of the Bitcoin blockchain appeared.

The new chain, however, managed to produce only two blocks before effectively coming to a halt.

At the center of the entire story is BIP-110.

And although the name sounds technical, the dispute behind it is actually quite simple.

The Dispute That Divided the Bitcoin Community

Bitcoin was created as a decentralized system for transferring value.

In recent years, however, people have started using the blockchain for other purposes as well.

With the emergence of Ordinals, for example, it became popular to store images, text, and other data directly on Bitcoin.

For some, this is simply another use case for the technology.

For others, it is a problem.

Their argument is that space in every Bitcoin block is limited and should not be filled with images, tokens, and other information unrelated to its primary function as money.

Over time, two camps gradually formed.

One side says:

“Bitcoin should remain, first and foremost, a monetary network.”

The other side responds:

“If the transaction is valid and the user pays the required fee, no one should decide what they are allowed to use Bitcoin for.”

And it was from this dispute that BIP-110 emerged.

What Did BIP-110 Aim to Change?

The idea was to heavily restrict certain methods of storing additional data on Bitcoin for a period of around one year.

In practice, the goal was to make it significantly more difficult to use the blockchain for large amounts of images and other similar data.

Supporters saw this as a way to return Bitcoin to its original purpose.

Opponents, however, saw something much more dangerous.

For them, the question was no longer whether images on Bitcoin were useful or annoying.

The question was:

Who has the right to decide what Bitcoin can be used for?

If the network changes the rules today to stop one type of transaction, what prevents someone from demanding that other types be blocked tomorrow?

It was precisely because of this principle that well-known figures such as Michael Saylor and Adam Back spoke out against BIP-110.

The Support Never Came

For a change like this to become the new standard for Bitcoin, a sufficiently large part of the network must adopt it.

With BIP-110, that did not happen.

As early as July, it was clear that miner support was extremely low – below 1% during the observed periods, far from the proposed 55% threshold.

Despite this, the proposal had a predefined activation point at which its supporters were expected to begin following the new rules.

That moment came in August.

And that is when the most interesting part happened.

Bitcoin Split

When the predefined activation point arrived, computers running under the BIP-110 rules began rejecting blocks that the main Bitcoin network continued to accept.

That created two separate chains.

On one side was the Bitcoin everyone knows.

On the other was the small group following BIP-110.

In theory, both could have continued to exist independently.

In practice, however, a major problem emerged.

Almost all miners remained on the main Bitcoin chain.

The New Chain Lasted Only Two Blocks

For a Bitcoin chain to continue operating, it needs miners constantly producing the next blocks.

The BIP-110 chain had almost none.

It managed to produce only two blocks.

After that, it effectively stopped.

Meanwhile, the main Bitcoin network continued operating normally, retaining almost all of the network's computing power, activity, and liquidity.

And so, a dispute that had looked for months like a potentially major conflict over Bitcoin's future received a fairly decisive answer from the network itself.

And That Is What Makes This Story So Interesting

BIP-110 was not stopped by a company.

It was not banned by a regulator.

There was no CEO who could say: “No, this is not going to happen.”

Its supporters proposed different rules and had every right to use them.

The rest of the network simply chose not to follow.

And perhaps that is the most important lesson from the entire saga.

We often talk about Bitcoin as a decentralized network, but rarely do we get such a clear example of what that actually means in practice.

Anyone can propose a change.

Anyone can choose what software to run.

Anyone can even choose to follow their own path.

But no one can force everyone else to follow.