Blockstream CEO Adam Back publicly dismissed the BIP-110 proposal on June 8, 2026, calling it technically flawed and warning that forcing its activation could split Bitcoin into a minority fork. Back argued the user-activated soft fork (UASF) lacks both the technical and ecosystem consensus that SegWit enjoyed back in 2017. The rejection comes as node support for the proposal hovers at low single-digit levels and its activation window narrows over the coming months.
Back's technical opposition
Back didn't mince words. BIP-110 is designed to restrict non-monetary data in Bitcoin transactions, but he says the proposal is built on shaky ground. In a statement that drew a direct line to the SegWit debate nearly a decade ago, he noted that SegWit achieved broad consensus among developers, miners, and node operators before activation. BIP-110, by contrast, has no such backing. “Forcing it through without consensus risks creating a minority chain that most of the ecosystem won't follow,” he warned. Back is one of Bitcoin's earliest developers and his skepticism carries weight in the core dev community.
Saylor sounds the alarm
Michael Saylor, the MicroStrategy chairman and prominent Bitcoin bull, didn't hold back either. He identified BIP-110 as the biggest self-inflicted protocol threat to Bitcoin right now. That's a sharp label from someone who rarely weighs in on low-level technical debates. Saylor's alignment with Back's warning suggests the proposal has rattled even the most vocal institutional advocates. Both men see the UASF mechanism as a dangerous precedent that could fracture the network rather than improve it.
Node support and the ticking clock
The numbers don't look good for the proposal's chances. Node support for BIP-110 sat at low single-digit levels as of June 2026, far below the threshold needed to trigger a soft fork safely. Meanwhile the activation window that the proposal's authors set is closing in the next several months. If the UASF doesn't gather meaningful momentum soon, it's effectively dead. But the lack of support hasn't stopped the debate from turning bitter.
Community fractures over history
Critics have accused BIP-110's lead proponent of misrepresenting historical Bitcoin protocol events to build a case for the UASF. That charge has deepened the split within the community — exactly the kind of division that Back and Saylor both argue makes a forced fork so dangerous. The back-and-forth has pushed the technical merits of the proposal into the background as personal attacks and historical rewrites take center stage. Whether the proposal's author can rebuild trust or pivot to a more collaborative approach remains an open question. For now, the clock is ticking and the network's biggest names have made their position clear.
