This article aims to explain the ongoing controversy surrounding the proposal to improve Bitcoin BIP 110, which has reignited an old conflict within the Bitcoin community regarding governance, the limits of change, and the meaning of “consensus.”

We will provide a brief historical background, then present the positions of supporters and opponents, clarifying why each side sees the other as a threat to the network. Finally, we will offer practical guidance for ordinary Bitcoin users who lack the technical knowledge to choose a “side” in this conflict but want to protect their funds and understand what is happening without ideological noise.

BIP 110 and the New Civil War Within Bitcoin

1/ BIP 110 reopened one of Bitcoin’s oldest fault lines:
Who has the right to decide what is allowed to be used with Bitcoin?

Supporters of BIP 110 believe they are saving the network from long-term harm. Opponents believe they are attacking the rules of consensus.

Both sides are serious.
And both sides accuse the other of playing with fire.

BIP 110 is a proposal to make changes at the Bitcoin consensus level, meaning the core rules that define what is a “valid block” and what is a “valid transaction.”

This is not a debate about default node settings.

If BIP 110 is activated, some types of transactions that were historically valid will become invalid at the protocol level, and any block containing them will be rejected by nodes that rely on these rules. This undermines the neutrality of financial transaction processing.

Simply put, the proposal aims to:
- Restrict certain data usages within transactions
- Disable or remove parts of the opcode space (opcodes)
- Prevent the creation of certain “non-standard” Bitcoin units
- Make some current UTXOs (Bitcoin outputs) non-spendable or economically unviable

The core point here:
These things were not previously banned by consensus; they were only “disfavored” at the policy level, yet remain valid if a miner includes them in a block.
BIP 110 shifts the line from:
“Disrecommended”
to:
“Protocol-invalid.”

How do supporters see it?
Supporters of BIP 110 believe Bitcoin is heading in a dangerous direction.
From their perspective:
- Consensus rules have been too lenient from the start
- Transaction and block policy alone is insufficient if miners ignore it
- Using Bitcoin as a public data layer increases node operating costs
- Higher costs lead to greater centralization in the long run
- They do not see themselves as changing Bitcoin but as fixing it.
- In their view, non-intervention is the real danger, not the change itself.

How do opponents see it?
- Opponents see BIP 110 as a red line.
From their perspective:
- Consensus rules are not a tool for “correct usage” oversight
- Bitcoin’s social contract is that valid coins remain valid
- Turning cultural preferences into consensus rules sets a dangerous precedent
- Removing logical code or disabling existing outputs destroys fundamental guarantees

They argue that:
- Fee markets are sufficient to regulate data usage
If users pay fees, they are not “attacking” the network
- Blocks are still limited to a maximum size of 4MB, which is enough to reduce node operating costs
- Ideological disputes are not resolved at the protocol level
- For them, BIP 110 is not protection — it’s coercion.

Some supporters compare BIP 110 to enabling SegWit via UASF during the block wars of 2017.
This analogy is inaccurate.

SegWit: was widely supported by developers, companies, and markets
It was opposed by a small miner cartel
It did not make previously valid coins unspendable
It removed an obstacle and did not impose a new constraint

BIP 110: currently lacks support from major mining pools or leading platforms
It enforces new validity rules
It changes the meaning of “what is valid Bitcoin”
UASF succeeds when it unblocks an existing deadlock.

BIP 110 attempts to impose a new direction without clear economic consensus.

Is this an attack on Bitcoin?
Intent is not the standard in Bitcoin; the outcome is.
If:
BIP 110 fails to gain majority hash power and market support
And a group tries to enforce it
Many — rightly so — will consider it an attack on Bitcoin’s consensus, even if the intentions are “noble.”

Our personal stance:
Changing consensus rules should be:
- Rare
- Boring
- Nearly uncontroversial

Any proposal:
- Makes existing coins unspendable
- Or permanently removes protocol capabilities
- Or is used to settle cultural disputes
does not meet this standard.
- If there is misuse,
Market, fees, and policies are sufficient to address it.

Consensus is the core layer
And it is only used when everyone already agrees.
$BTC $ETH $SOL #

#BuyTheDipOrWaitNow? #BitcoinBouncesBack #CelebratingNewYearOnGateSquare #U.S.–IranNuclearTalksTurmoil