Saylor Claims BIP-110 Support Rate is Only 2.70%, Voluntary Threshold Unachievable
Michael Saylor, founder of Strategy, stated that during the current Bitcoin difficulty adjustment cycle, only 38 blocks have signaled BIP-110 by block 961,022, accounting for 2.70%, making the 55% voluntary threshold unachievable.
Saylor pointed out that if BIP-110 is not locked by block 961,632, BIP-110 nodes will start rejecting blocks that have not signaled; unless major miners reverse their stance, Bitcoin will continue to operate under the original rules, while BIP-110 will either stagnate or lead to a fork.
BIP-110 aims to temporarily limit arbitrary data payloads in Bitcoin transactions, with the current main signals coming from DATUM miners under the OCEAN system, while mainstream mining pools have not publicly shown support.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
The core of this controversy is not technical details, but rather "who sets the rules" for Bitcoin: BIP-110 attempts to promote a temporary soft fork with a lower threshold, while Saylor believes this would turn "effectively functioning transactions in the fee market" into subjects of political voting, thus setting a dangerous precedent.
Similar cases can be compared to the early activation debates of SegWit and Taproot, but BIP-110's sharper point is that it introduces a "mandatory signaling window"; without broad consensus, executing nodes will reject non-signaled blocks, making it easier for disputes to escalate into chain-splitting risks compared to traditional soft forks.
In terms of capital pathways, current support is concentrated in OCEAN and a few independent miners, while mainstream mining pools like Foundry, Antpool, ViaBTC, and F2Pool have yet to switch, indicating that miners have not formed a unified commercial incentive; if mainstream pools do not express their stance, BIP-110 resembles a governance experiment of a niche camp rather than a network-level upgrade.
Essentially, this belongs to the "protocol governance layering" within regulatory changes: it is not state regulation, but rather on-chain rule regulation; the mechanism's reason is that Bitcoin lacks a centralized decision-maker, and any proposal attempting to modify the foundational rules in the name of "morality or order" ultimately faces a triple vote from miners, nodes, and the economy.
ABAB News · Laws of Cognition
The rules of Bitcoin cannot be changed by just anyone.
A support rate of 2.7% indicates that consensus has not yet begun.
When governance turns into voting, a fork is already on the way.