Adam Back’s Opposition to BIP-110: A Controversial Proposal

Blockstream CEO Adam Back has voiced significant concerns regarding Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP-110). This proposal aims to mitigate the effects of Ordinals-like “spam” on the Bitcoin network. Back’s opposition underscores a growing schism within the cryptocurrency community, a divide centered on the delicate balance between fostering innovation and preserving network integrity. This isn’t just a technical debate; it’s a philosophical one about the very nature of Bitcoin and its intended use. The core question is: should Bitcoin prioritize its role as a purely monetary network, or should it embrace broader functionalities, even if those functionalities might introduce inefficiencies or perceived ‘spam’?

Here’s the crux of the matter: BIP-110, proposed by the pseudonymous Bitcoin developer Dathon Ohm in December 2025, seeks to temporarily curtail the volume of data that can be stored within Bitcoin transactions. The rationale behind this proposal is to stem the tide of images, videos, and audio files that some within the community view as “data abuse,” arguing that these non-financial transactions clog the network and drive up transaction fees for legitimate financial transactions. The proposal suggests a temporary cap on the size of non-standard transactions, effectively limiting the ability to inscribe large files onto the blockchain. Interestingly, approximately 7.5% of Bitcoin nodes, specifically those operating Bitcoin Knots clients, have signaled their support for this proposal, indicating a non-negligible level of community interest in addressing the issue of Ordinals and similar data inscription methods. However, Adam Back remains unconvinced, raising concerns about the potential unintended consequences and the broader implications for Bitcoin’s long-term viability and censorship resistance.

Back contends that while BIP-110 is ostensibly intended to safeguard Bitcoin’s status as “sound money,” implementing such a change at the consensus level could have detrimental repercussions. He argues that it could be perceived as an “attack” on Bitcoin’s fundamental principles, undermining its credibility as a secure and immutable monetary network. In his perspective, the perceived ‘spam’ is merely an inconvenience and does not constitute a genuine security threat to the network. He posits that Bitcoin’s inherent design, with its fee market, should naturally regulate the use of block space, and that artificial constraints could stifle innovation and potentially harm legitimate use cases. From my own experience following Bitcoin’s development, I’ve seen numerous proposals aimed at improving the network, but the ones that garner the most scrutiny are those that alter the fundamental rules of the system. Changes to the consensus mechanism are always a delicate matter, as they can have far-reaching and unforeseen consequences.

What does this mean for the average Bitcoin user? BIP-110 is presented as a temporary solution, granting developers approximately 12 months to assess its impact while simultaneously exploring more permanent and nuanced solutions. The idea is to provide a short-term fix to the perceived problem of Ordinals ‘spam’ while allowing the community to develop more thorough strategies for managing block space and transaction fees in the long run. However, Back cautions that this approach could inadvertently lead to the freezing of funds by rendering certain unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs) unspendable. This is a significant concern, as it could potentially disrupt the fungibility of Bitcoin and create uncertainty about the future usability of existing Bitcoin holdings. Imagine holding Bitcoin that suddenly becomes unusable due to a consensus-level change – the potential for user frustration and loss of confidence in the network is substantial.

Conversely, Ohm acknowledges the inherent risks associated with BIP-110 but maintains that the proposal is carefully designed to avoid impacting any known legitimate use cases. This tension highlights the broader philosophical debate within the Bitcoin community regarding the types of transactions that should be permissible on the network. Supporters of non-financial transactions, such as Leonidas from the Ordinals ecosystem, argue that these transactions have contributed over $500 million in fees to the Bitcoin network, thereby bolstering its security. With the mining block subsidy halving approximately every four years, this revenue stream is becoming increasingly vital for incentivizing miners to continue securing the network. In fact, transaction fees are a vital part of the Bitcoin network, and the debate over Ordinals highlights the complex interplay between transaction fees, network security, and the types of data that are permissible on the blockchain. The question is whether the benefits of increased transaction fees outweigh the potential drawbacks of increased block size and the perceived ‘spam’ associated with non-financial transactions.

What Are the Implications of BIP-110?

However, the fervor surrounding Ordinals inscription fees has demonstrably waned. By the close of 2025, daily inscription fees consistently generated less than $10,000, a stark contrast to the peak periods of Ordinals activity. This decline raises questions about the long-term sustainability of relying on non-financial transactions as a significant source of revenue for Bitcoin miners. A CoinDesk survey revealed that Ordinal activity reached its zenith two years prior, when miners amassed nearly $10 million in fees on December 16, 2023. Since then, the trend has been largely downward, punctuated by only a few transient spikes. According to a 2024 report by Glassnode, inscription volumes have plummeted by 60% since their peak, indicating a significant decrease in demand for inscribing data onto the Bitcoin blockchain. This data suggests that the initial hype surrounding Ordinals may have subsided, and that the Bitcoin community is now grappling with the question of how to manage block space and transaction fees in a more sustainable and balanced manner. From my perspective, the rise and fall of Ordinals highlights the importance of considering the cyclical nature of innovation in the cryptocurrency space. What seems like a revolutionary development one year can quickly fade into obscurity the next, and it’s important to avoid making long-term decisions based on short-term trends.

As the Bitcoin community wrestles with these complex issues, the central question remains: how can we effectively balance the pursuit of innovation with the imperative to maintain the integrity of the network? Back’s opposition to BIP-110 underscores the elaborate and varied nature of this debate. While some proponents view the proposal as a necessary measure to safeguard Bitcoin’s core functionality and prevent network congestion, others perceive it as a potentially overreaching intervention that could stifle innovation and ultimately harm the network’s overall health. Plus, the debate raises fundamental questions about the role of Bitcoin in a rapidly evolving technological space. Should Bitcoin strive to remain a purely monetary network, or should it embrace new functionalities and use cases, even if those functionalities might introduce complexities and challenges? Also, here’s the original Bitcoin whitepaper if you wanna dive deep. Reading the original whitepaper is always a good starting point when trying to understand the core principles of Bitcoin and the intended design of the system.

In my experience observing and participating in the Bitcoin community, navigating these types of debates can be exceedingly challenging. There is rarely a universally accepted solution, and the stakes are invariably high, given the decentralized and permissionless nature of the network. The lack of a central authority means that consensus must be built through open dialogue and collaboration, which can be a slow and arduous process. Research from the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance indicates that Bitcoin consumes approximately 110 Terawatt-hours of electricity per year, highlighting the importance of optimizing network efficiency and minimizing unnecessary resource consumption. It’s therefore key for the community to engage in open and informed dialogue about the future trajectory of Bitcoin and its underlying technology, ensuring that decisions are made with a clear understanding of the potential consequences. I remember attending a Bitcoin conference a few years ago where a similar debate was unfolding regarding block size limits. The discussions were often heated, but ultimately, the community was able to reach a compromise that allowed for incremental scaling of the network without compromising its security or decentralization. These types of experiences underscore the importance of patience, compromise, and a willingness to listen to different perspectives when navigating complex technical and philosophical debates within the Bitcoin community.

Ultimately, the outcome of this debate surrounding BIP-110 has the potential to significantly shape the future of Bitcoin as we know it. It represents a central moment in the evolution of the network, and I am keenly interested to observe how it unfolds. The decisions made in the coming months and years will have lasting consequences for the long-term viability and relevance of Bitcoin as a global monetary system. Will the community embrace innovation and adapt to new use cases, or will it prioritize the preservation of Bitcoin’s original design principles, even if that means potentially limiting its future growth and adoption? These are the questions that are at the heart of the BIP-110 debate, and the answers will ultimately determine the future of Bitcoin.

So, in your opinion, what constitutes the optimal path forward for Bitcoin? I am eager to hear your thoughts and perspectives on this critical issue!