Bitcoin nodes running the BIP-110 protocol now exceed 2%!

In a network where each line of code can become a manifesto, the slightest technical signal takes on the appearance of a political declaration. BIP 110, supported by a growing fraction of Bitcoin nodes, illustrates this internal tension. Behind this seemingly minor proposal lies a clear desire: to tighten control over the insertion of data into the blockchain and to defend a more rigorous vision of the protocol.

BIP‑110 reporting: a technical dynamic is being organized

While Bitcoin Core passed an independent audit without a scratch, 2.38% of Bitcoin nodes currently signaling support for BIP-110or 583 nodes out of a total of 24,481, according to data published by developer Luke Dashjr.

Although this percentage remains in the minority, it is part of a constant progression. BIP-110 is a proposed soft fork that aims to restrict the size and scope of arbitrary data embedded in Bitcoin transactions. Its objective is to limit abuses that could harm the performance and decentralization of the network.

Here is the main technical characteristics of this proposition:

• A strict limit of OP_RETURN data to 83 bytes;
• Reducing the maximum size of transaction outputs to 34 bytes;
• A period of application set at one year, with possible re-evaluation after expiry;
• Compatibility ensured via a soft fork, without breaking consensus;
• Reporting supported by Bitcoin Knots, an alternative to Bitcoin Core;
• A mechanism that can be used as part of a Node-Activated Soft Fork (NASF).

This increase in reporting across the network reflects a coordinated and deliberate movement. The choice of the soft fork allows nodes to express their disagreement without creating a break, while indirectly weighing on the technical and political debate around the orientations of Bitcoin Core.

Ideological divides around blockchain data

The rise of BIP‑110 cannot be understood without returning to the recent decision of Bitcoin Core maintainers. Version 30 of the core client removed the limit on OP_RETURN data, opening the door to potentially more resource-intensive usages.

For some, this deletion represents a shift. Luke Dashjr, instigator of BIP-110, openly criticizes this decision and defends a more minimalist vision of the Bitcoin network: “unnecessary data storage harms decentralization and increases costs for node operators”. This approach resonates with supporters of a strictly monetary Bitcoin, keen to preserve the lightness of the protocol.

On the other hand, several community contributors believe that this concern is exaggerated. Jameson Lopp, a well-known figure in the ecosystem, says that “limiting OP_RETURN does not solve spam problems” and that “Spamers can always use other means to insert data”.

He also questions the effectiveness of filters such as those introduced in Bitcoin Knots, considering that they do not constitute a structural answer to the problem. This disagreement highlights an old tension: should we restrict the freedom of use of the blockchain to preserve its scalability, or encourage experimentation at the risk of saturating the network?

As BIP‑110 continues to gain ground, another warning sign is shaking the network: more than 2,500 nodes are believed to be vulnerable to a critical bug. Between tensions over governance and technical fragilities, the blockchain is going through a zone of turbulence where each line of code becomes a strategic issue.