A proposed Bitcoin soft fork that would have temporarily blocked non-payment data from being recorded on the blockchain failed to gain the necessary community support this week. The proposal, known as BIP-110, was opposed by prominent Bitcoin supporters Michael Saylor, Adam Back, and Samson Mow, effectively killing its chances of adoption.
What BIP-110 aimed to do
BIP-110 would have introduced a temporary ban on non-payment data — essentially any data that isn't a transaction — being written to the Bitcoin blockchain. The idea was to reduce block space congestion and keep the chain focused on financial transfers. But critics argued it would stifle innovation and limit use cases like Ordinals and inscriptions, which have driven recent network activity.
Who opposed it
Michael Saylor, executive chairman of MicroStrategy and a vocal Bitcoin advocate, came out against the fork. Adam Back, CEO of Blockstream and a key figure in Bitcoin's early development, also opposed it. Samson Mow, CEO of JAN3 and a longtime Bitcoin maximalist, joined the pushback. Their combined influence within the Bitcoin community made it clear the proposal wouldn't get the consensus needed for activation.
Why it failed
Bitcoin soft forks require broad miner and node operator support to activate. Without buy-in from influential developers and business leaders, BIP-110 never built the momentum it needed. The opposition wasn't just about the technical details — it was about the direction of the network. Blocking non-payment data, even temporarily, was seen by many as a step too far in controlling what users can do with block space.
The proposal is now effectively dead. No new timeline or revised version has been put forward, and the community has moved on to other scaling discussions.
