科技 BIP 110 提案将限制比特币上的任意数据一年,但 Michael Saylor、Adam Back 和其他人表示,将垃圾邮件争议转变为共识之争可能会产生比垃圾邮件本身更大的风险。 一项名为 BIP-110 的有争议提案将暂时限制比特币区块链上的非金融数据,该提案面临 8 月初的截止日期,而矿工支持率仍低于 1%。 该措施将收紧对 OP_RETURN 和其他数据携带方式的限制,为期一年,支持者称此举将重新将比特币的重点放在支付上,但批评者认为,对有效的付费交易进行了不当审查。 由于 Michael Saylor 和 Adam Back 等主要人物反对该计划,而且矿工和节点的采用率都停留在较低的个位数,BIP-110 似乎只会创建一个小的少数链,而不是整个网络范围的变化。
一项臭名昭著的从比特币区块链中清除非金融数据的提议即将在 8 月初截止,到目前为止,它从矿工那里获得的初步支持还不到 1%——尽管围绕这个话题的社会讨论非常多,但这是一个强烈反对的信号。 BIP-110,正式名称为“减少数据临时软分叉”,基本上是一场关于比特币区块空间用途的争论。 比特币交易可以携带金钱和额外数据。 OP_RETURN 部分是交易中小数据的明显“注释字段”,数据推送是另一种途径——用户可以将更大的原始数据块放入比特币脚本或见证数据中。序数、铭文和一些代币方案使用这些路径将图像、文本或代币元数据放在链上。 BIP-110 将暂时收紧这些路径一年。它将把 OP_RETURN 限制在原来的小尺寸,阻止大多数超过 256 字节的任意数据块,并限制一些主要用于数据存储的脚本格式。
支持者表示,这让比特币专注于支付并降低了节点负担,但批评者认为,这将政策斗争变成了共识规则,并告诉用户哪些交易是“可接受的”。 周六,两位比特币最具影响力的人物站出来反对它。 Strategy 创始人 Michael Saylor 发帖称,“对比特币来说,有 110 种东西比垃圾邮件更危险”,他认为该提案“将垃圾邮件争议转变为共识的改变,这将使一些当前有效的付费交易失效。”他写道,先例才是真正的危险。 对于比特币来说,有 110 种东西比垃圾邮件更危险。 BIP 110 将垃圾邮件争议转变为共识变更,这将使一些当前有效的付费交易无效。 这个先例就是危险。我们应该把精力留给真正重要的威胁。 $BTC — 迈克尔·塞勒 (@saylor) 2026 年 7 月 11 日 Blockstream 联合创始人 Adam Back 的 hashcash 设计在比特币白皮书中被引用,他对支持该提案的新人做了更详细的类似案例。
他说:“比特币恭敬地对你想要的东西说不。”他补充说,如果他们不服气,他们真正的办法是联合起来并分叉,但“比特币不会加入其中”。 支持数据显示了更广泛市场的真实想法。 BIP 110 不依赖于压倒性矿工批准的通常路径,而是使用用户激活的软分叉,这是一种节点强制执行规则的机制,无论矿工是否同意,矿工信号阈值设置为 55%,而不是传统的 95%。 即使在明显较低的水平上也没有支持。 根据 BIP 110 信号监控器的数据,在任何时期,矿工信号从未上升到超过 1% 左右,并且当前处于零水平,没有主要矿池支持。 在存储和中继链的节点中,采用率处于低个位数,几乎完全由比特币 Knots 承载,比特币 Knots 是占主导地位的比特币核心软件的替代品。 无论如何,最后期限都会到来。当前的信号发送周期从区块 957,600 到区块 959,615,自愿锁定截止日期为下一个周期的区块 961,542,预计在 8 月初。
然后,运行 BIP 110 软件的节点将开始拒绝任何未发出支持信号的区块,预计将于 9 月左右激活。实际上,由百分之几的节点和几乎没有矿工执行的规则不会为每个人改变比特币,但会分裂出少数链。 因此,比特币对变革的抵制并没有在任何地方被记录下来,而是数以千计的独立运营商的产物,每个运营商都必须选择加入作为共识的手段。 潜在的垃圾邮件问题是真实存在的。自 10 月份的变化以来,区块承载了更多的非金融数据,理性的人认为这是从比特币作为货币转向比特币作为数据库的转变。但比特币只有在网络同意运行变更时才会发生变化,而根据迄今为止的证据,它不会运行这一变更。
Tech
The BIP 110 proposal would cap arbitrary data on Bitcoin for a year, but Michael Saylor, Adam Back and others say turning a spam dispute into a consensus fight could create a bigger risk than the spam itself.
Updated Jul 13, 2026, 8:41 a.m. Published Jul 12, 2026, 5:49 a.m.
3 min read
Make preferred on
Make preferred on
A controversial proposal known as BIP-110, which would temporarily restrict non-financial data on the Bitcoin blockchain, faces an early August deadline with miner support still below 1%.
The measure would tighten limits on OP_RETURN and other data-carrying methods for one year, a move backers say would refocus Bitcoin on payments but critics argue improperly censors valid, fee-paying transactions.
With major figures like Michael Saylor and Adam Back opposing the plan and both miner and node adoption stuck in the low single digits, BIP-110 appears likely to create only a small minority chain rather than a network-wide change.
An infamous proposal to purge non-financial data from the Bitcoin blockchain is heading toward a hard deadline in early August, and the initial support it has gathered from miners is less than 1% so far — a signal of outsized opposition despite the immense social chatter around the topic.
BIP-110, formally titled the Reduced Data Temporary Soft Fork, is basically a fight over what Bitcoin block space is for.
Bitcoin transactions can carry money and extra data. An OP_RETURN section is the obvious “note field” for small bits of data within transactions, and data pushes are another route — where users can place larger chunks of raw data inside Bitcoin script or witness data. Ordinals, inscriptions and some token schemes use those paths to put images, text or token metadata onchain.
BIP-110 would temporarily tighten those paths for one year. It would cap OP_RETURN at the old small size, block most arbitrary data chunks above 256 bytes, and restrict some script formats used mainly for data storage.
Supporters say this keeps Bitcoin focused on payments and lowers node burden, but critics think it turns a policy fight into a consensus rule and tells users which transactions are “acceptable.”
Two of Bitcoin's most influential figures came out against it on Saturday. Strategy founder Michael Saylor posted that "there are 110 things more dangerous to Bitcoin than spam," arguing the proposal "turns a spam dispute into a consensus change that would invalidate some currently valid, fee-paying transactions." The precedent, he wrote, is the real danger.
There are 110 things more dangerous to Bitcoin than spam.
BIP 110 turns a spam dispute into a consensus change that would invalidate some currently valid, fee-paying transactions.
That precedent is the danger. We should save our energy for threats that really matter. $BTC
— Michael Saylor (@saylor) July 11, 2026
Adam Back, the Blockstream co-founder whose hashcash design is cited in the bitcoin white paper, made a similar case at greater length, addressed to the newcomers backing the proposal.
"Bitcoin respectfully says no to what you want," he said, adding that their real recourse, if unconvinced, is to group together and fork away, but that "bitcoin won't be joining it."
The support data shows what the broader market really thinks. BIP 110 does not rely on the usual path of overwhelming miner approval, but uses a user-activated soft fork, a mechanism in which nodes enforce a rule whether or not miners agree, set to a 55% miner-signaling threshold rather than the traditional 95%.
Backing is absent even at that significantly lower bar.
Miner signaling has never risen above about 1% in any period and stands at zero in the current one, with no major mining pool behind it, according to the BIP 110 signaling monitor.
Among the nodes that store and relay the chain, adoption sits in the low single digits, carried almost entirely by Bitcoin Knots, an alternative to the dominant Bitcoin Core software.
The deadline arrives regardless. The current signaling period runs from block 957,600 to 959,615, and a voluntary lock-in deadline falls at block 961,542 in the following period, expected in early August.
Nodes running BIP 110 software would then begin rejecting any block that does not signal support, with activation projected near September. In practice, a rule enforced by a few percent of nodes and almost no miners does not change Bitcoin for everyone but would split off a minority chain.
As such, Bitcoin's resistance to change is not written down anywhere, but is the product of thousands of independent operators who each have to opt in as a means of consensus.
The underlying spam concern is real. Blocks have carried more non-financial data since the October change, and reasonable people see that as a drift from Bitcoin as money toward Bitcoin as a database. But Bitcoin changes only when the network agrees to run the change, and on the evidence so far, it will not run this one.