Adam Back Opposes BIP-110, Warns It Could Weaken Bitcoin Network
Blockstream CEO Adam Back has publicly opposed BIP-110, a December proposal from pseudonymous developer Dathon Ohm that would temporarily reduce the amount of arbitrary data allowed per Bitcoin transaction to curb data-heavy uses such as Ordinals and Runes. Back argued on X that implementing BIP-110 without broad consensus would amount to an attack on the network, could render some UTXOs unspendable and harm Bitcoin’s reliability and reputation. Support for the change appears limited: roughly 7.5% of nodes (all running Bitcoin Knots) have signaled readiness. The debate follows Bitcoin Core’s late-2025 removal of the 80-byte OP_RETURN limit, after which Bitcoin Knots’ share rose from about 1.8% to 22.7% and Bitcoin Core fell to 77.2%. Ordinals and Runes historically generated substantial miner fee revenue (peaking at nearly $10 million in fees in a single day in Dec. 2023 and over $500 million cumulatively), though inscription-related fees had dropped to under $10,000 per day by late 2025. Developer Dathon Ohm acknowledged a theoretical risk of unspendable UTXOs but said the proposal aims to avoid known legitimate use cases. For traders, the dispute adds governance-driven uncertainty to BTC fee markets and on-chain activity: if enacted or if it triggers wider client divergence, the proposal could affect short-term transaction costs, miner revenue dynamics and perceived network stability, creating volatility in BTC trading. Keywords: BIP-110, Bitcoin, Ordinals, Runes, transaction fees.
Neutral
The news is classified as neutral for BTC price impact. The dispute is governance-focused and highlights technical risks (potential UTXO issues) and client divergence, which can raise short-term uncertainty and localized volatility in fee markets and miner revenue. Such uncertainty may trigger short-term selling by risk-aware traders or reduce on-chain activity, producing transient downward pressure on BTC prices. However, the proposal currently has limited support (roughly 7.5% of nodes signaling) and no immediate network-wide enforcement, reducing the likelihood of a major, lasting price move. Historically, debates over protocol policy and fee dynamics produce heightened volatility but not sustained directional trends unless they cause chain splits, major miner exits, or prolonged undermining of network utility. Long-term impact is likely limited: if resolved via consensus or abandoned, network fundamentals and fee revenue patterns should normalize. If the proposal or countermeasures materially reduce inscription-driven fees, miner revenue could be modestly affected, but miners and users have adapted to fee regime shifts in the past. Traders should monitor node signaling, developer messaging, miner coding choices, and on-chain fee metrics; near-term trading strategies might hedge around potential volatility until the governance outcome becomes clearer.