Blockstream CEO Adam Back has renewed his criticism of Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110), arguing that attempts to impose controversial network changes have repeatedly failed to gain
Blockstream CEO Adam Back has renewed his criticism of Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110), arguing that attempts to impose controversial network changes have repeatedly failed to gain market support.
SummaryIn a November 3 post on X, Back referenced earlier commentary from Bitcoin advocate Francis Pouliot while addressing supporters of the proposed Bitcoin fork.
“Attempts to impose your views on bitcoin get market rejected,” Back wrote, pointing to previous disputes over Bitcoin’s rules.
He described Pouliot’s commentary as a “masterclass on bitcoin reality” and said discussions about Bitcoin’s established rules were intended to help people understand immutability.
prior fork context for bip110 fork supporters: @francispouliot_ masterclass on bitcoin reality. yet again: attempts to impose your views on bitcoin get market rejected. @_podconf memes about BIG BITCOIN are well meaning: for you to understand immutabilityhttps://t.co/a02AI62DE8
— Adam Back (@adam3us) November 3, 2026
Back’s latest comments followed renewed discussion about BIP-110, a proposal designed to restrict certain forms of non-financial data on Bitcoin.
Responding to the debate, Back argued that the dispute concerned more than the data being stored.
“It’s not necessarily about the payload,” he wrote in a separate post.
He argued that the market would resist efforts to override consensus, even when supporters believed their proposed changes were beneficial.
Back further claimed that BIP-110 “failed the first gate hard” because of what he described as serious technical problems.
You might also like: BIP-110 is dead: what Bitcoin’s failed anti-spam fork reveals about governance in 2026
The criticism continued a position he adopted earlier this year, when he warned that the proposal could divide Bitcoin’s network.
In July, crypto.news reported opposition from Adam Back and Strategy executive chairman Michael Saylor.
Both questioned whether restrictions on particular transaction types justified changing Bitcoin’s consensus rules.
BIP-110, formally titled the Reduced Data Temporary Softfork, was authored by developer Dathon Ohm.
The published proposal sought to introduce additional restrictions on arbitrary data stored within Bitcoin transactions for approximately one year.
Its rules would limit standard transaction output scripts to 34 bytes, with an exception allowing OP_RETURN outputs of up to 83 bytes.
Other provisions would restrict certain data fields to 256 bytes and introduce additional limitations affecting Taproot transactions.
Supporters argued that inscriptions and other non-financial data place unnecessary storage demands on Bitcoin nodes.
Their position was that restricting such activity could reduce operating costs and preserve Bitcoin’s use as a payment network.
Developer Luke Dashjr, associated with Bitcoin Knots and the OCEAN mining pool, was among the proposal’s prominent supporters.
However, opponents argued that changing consensus rules to reject particular transactions could undermine Bitcoin’s neutrality.
The proposal’s official status is now listed as Closed.
The dispute moved beyond technical discussions in August when BIP-110 supporters attempted to activate their preferred rules.
The proposal required 55% miner signaling for voluntary activation. However, only 2.53% of blocks supported it during the relevant signaling period.
On August 8, nodes enforcing BIP-110 rejected a block accepted by the main Bitcoin network, creating a separate chain.
The minority branch produced two blocks before falling behind the established network.
Coverage of the Bitcoin chain split showed that the new branch struggled to attract enough mining power to continue producing blocks regularly.
Following the split, supporters discussed changing the minority network’s proof-of-work algorithm to BLAKE2b.
The proposed alternative mining system would no longer depend on Bitcoin’s existing SHA-256 mining arrangements.
Recent network measurements show limited adoption of BIP-110’s enforcement software.
Data published by bitdis.org on November 3 recorded eight enforcing nodes among 18,870 observed nodes, representing approximately 0.04%.
The same monitoring service recorded zero BIP-110 signaling blocks among 649 blocks mined during the current difficulty period.
These measurements do not represent a complete count of every privately operated node, but they provide a snapshot of publicly observable participation.
Bitcoin Core accounted for nearly 90% of the monitored nodes, while Bitcoin Knots represented approximately 10%.
Running Bitcoin Knots does not automatically mean a node supports BIP-110, since the software offers different configurations.
The latest figures differ considerably from earlier periods when several hundred nodes reportedly ran BIP-110-compatible software.
Back’s renewed criticism followed the proposal’s failure to establish a competing chain with meaningful mining support.
In another historical post from July 2023, which he resurfaced during the debate, Back described contentious Bitcoin forks as repeated challenges to the network’s immutability.
He accompanied the renewed discussion with a brief observation: “Time is a flat circle.”
Read more: Why is XRP price stuck at $1.25 despite nearly 8,000 new wallets?
