Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by our writers are their own and do not represent the views of U.Today. The financial and market information provided on U.Today is intended for informational purposes only. U.Today is not liable for any financial losses incurred while trading cryptocurrencies. Conduct your own research by contacting financial experts before making any investment decisions. We believe that all content is accurate as of the date of publication, but certain offers mentioned may no longer be available.
Adam Back, the well-known cypherpunk and CEO of Blockstream, continues to deliver fierce criticism of BIP-110, calling it a potential threat to network stability and trust in Bitcoin as a store of value.
For those not familiar, BIP-110 is a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal aimed at clearing the blockchain of junk data, images and videos created through protocols such as Ordinals and Runes by introducing a temporary 12-month soft fork.
Is BIP-110 a hidden rug-pull of Bitcoin?
In a fresh X post, Back supported the view that proponents of BIP-110 are ready to go as far as sacrificing ordinary users if it helps punish spammers. According to him, the key risks include the freezing of funds tied to existing transaction outputs, which would effectively mean loss of access to funds for some users, as well as the danger of a chain split.
The proposal suggests activation with support from just 50% of the hash rate instead of the traditional 95%, which could lead to BTC splitting into two competing chains. There is also reputational damage, which Back describes as an attempt at a lynch mob and an attack on Bitcoin’s neutrality.
Back argues that spam is an unnecessary inconvenience rather than a security threat, and that fighting it through measures like BIP-110 would cause more harm than the data itself.
At the moment, the proposal is supported only by a small share of nodes — around 2.4% to 4.5% — mainly those running the Bitcoin Knots client. The largest mining pools have so far shown no interest in the initiative.
Back concludes that BIP-110 is effectively "dead on arrival," and that the willingness of part of the community to consider such radical and reckless measures is deeply concerning to the Bitcoin pioneer.
Dan Burgin
Vladislav Sopov
