{"id":30752,"date":"2026-07-14T19:30:17","date_gmt":"2026-07-14T18:30:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/investx.fr\/en\/2026\/07\/14\/bip110-bitcoin-softfork-data-censorship\/"},"modified":"2026-07-14T19:30:21","modified_gmt":"2026-07-14T18:30:21","slug":"bip110-bitcoin-softfork-data-censorship","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/investx.fr\/en\/crypto-news\/bip110-bitcoin-softfork-data-censorship\/","title":{"rendered":"BIP110: The Bitcoin Softfork That Wants to Censor ‘Useless’ Data \u2014 and Why It’s Doomed to Fail"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A Bitcoin softfork is stirring controversy among developers and network users. Known as BIP110<\/strong>, it claims to clean up the blockchain by eliminating transactions deemed “non-monetary.” But behind this ambition for technical purification lies a far more troubling logic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Brandon Black<\/strong>, a well-respected Bitcoin developer, has taken a firm stand in the pages of Bitcoin Magazine<\/em> to explain why this proposal is not only questionable on its merits, but genuinely dangerous to the founding principles of the network.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From an accelerated activation timeline and a lowered approval threshold to a logic of censorship<\/strong> dressed up as technical optimization, BIP110<\/strong> encapsulates every tension running through the Bitcoin ecosystem in 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

BIP110: A Proposal That Dangerously Redefines What a Legitimate Transaction Is<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

BIP110<\/strong>, also referred to as the Reduced Data Temporary Softfork<\/em>, starts from a straightforward observation: certain Bitcoin<\/a> transactions embed data within their scripts that can be interpreted in multiple ways simultaneously \u2014 beyond a simple reading in Bitcoin Script. For its supporters, this constitutes a violation of the network’s principles, sufficient to justify restricting access.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The problem is that this logic introduces an unprecedented and arbitrary distinction between “monetary” and “non-monetary” transactions. Yet no such distinction exists anywhere in the Bitcoin protocol<\/strong>. Every transaction \u2014 whether it transfers satoshis or inscribes data via Ordinals<\/strong> \u2014 works in exactly the same way: it satisfies the conditions of a locking script, consumes inputs, and generates outputs. The size of the script has no bearing on the validity of the operation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What BIP110<\/strong> is actually proposing is the introduction of a form of editorial control over transaction content<\/strong> \u2014 a first in the history of the protocol. And it does so with a deployment timeline far faster than the last two major softforks, and a lowered activation threshold, which mechanically reduces the level of consensus required.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"BIP110<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Censorship-Resistant or Censored Network? The Paradox at the Heart of Bitcoin<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Bitcoin<\/a> was designed as an open, censorship-resistant ledger<\/strong>. Anyone can submit a transaction, provided they pay sufficient fees to convince miners to include it in a block. It is precisely this property that sets Bitcoin<\/strong> apart from a simple bowling scoreboard \u2014 to borrow Brandon Black<\/strong>‘s analogy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Accepting BIP110<\/strong> means accepting that third parties \u2014 developers, miners, or a majority of nodes \u2014 can decide which transactions deserve to exist on-chain. This precedent carries serious consequences: if Ordinals<\/strong> can be excluded today in the name of “monetary purity,” nothing prevents the same logic from being applied tomorrow to other use cases deemed undesirable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The parallel with freedom of expression is relevant here: a censorship-resistance right only has value if it also applies to transactions one disapproves of<\/strong>. A Bitcoin<\/a> that only protects transactions “approved” by a majority is no longer a neutral Bitcoin \u2014 it is a controlled ledger. And from a node validation standpoint, Ordinals or OP_RETURN transactions are neither more nor less costly to process than a complex multisig: they are simply valid or invalid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why BIP110 Is Already Failing \u2014 and What That Reveals About Bitcoin<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Beyond the technical arguments, it is the social dynamics surrounding BIP110<\/strong> that expose its weaknesses. The proposal is struggling to build sufficient consensus within the Bitcoin Core<\/strong> developer community, and criticism is coming from a wide range of voices \u2014 from maximalists to on-chain application developers. That lack of cohesion is itself a telling signal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bitcoin<\/a> has always evolved slowly and deliberately, with softforks built on years of discussion and testing. Taproot<\/strong>, activated in November 2021, required several years of work and a high activation threshold. BIP110<\/strong> seeks to short-circuit that process \u2014 which in itself represents a break from the protocol’s governance culture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The anticipated failure of BIP110<\/strong> is not a victory for Ordinals or on-chain inscriptions \u2014 it is a confirmation that Bitcoin resists attempts to unilaterally redefine its fundamental rules<\/strong>. The deeper question this controversy raises is more profound: how far is the community willing to go to “protect” a network whose very strength lies in having no gatekeepers?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Related articles :<\/h3>\n\n\n\n