Bitcoin's foundational principles are currently at the heart of a contentious debate, as a new proposal aimed at curbing "spam" on the network sparks fierce opposition and reveals a power struggle within the community. This discussion goes beyond technical specifics, touching upon issues of censorship, decentralization, and the very future of Bitcoin's identity.
The BIP-110 Controversy
At the center of the storm is BIP-110, a proposal championed by developers like Dathon Ohm and supported by a growing segment of Bitcoin Knots users, which seeks to limit the storage of large data like JPEG images and audio files (Ordinals) on the blockchain. However, this initiative faces strong criticism from prominent figures like Blockstream CEO Adam Back, who controversially labeled it a "lynch mob attempt" to force changes without community consensus. Back argues that such a proposal fundamentally attacks Bitcoin's credibility as a store of value and its security, viewing "spam" as a minor annoyance compared to the risks of contentious forks, frozen UTXOs, and the disabling of features without broad agreement.
Shifting Power and Future Implications
The debate surrounding BIP-110 is not merely about data limits; it signifies a deeper shift in the power dynamics of the Bitcoin network. Historically dominated by Bitcoin Core, the landscape is evolving, with Bitcoin Knots now commanding a significant portion of node operations. This shift gained momentum following Bitcoin Core's 2025 decision to remove the 80-byte limit on the OP_RETURN function, which inadvertently paved the way for increased data "spam" and subsequently, the demand for proposals like BIP-110. This ongoing conflict, alongside past controversies regarding potential hard forks and "trusted committees" for data removal, underscores a critical juncture for Bitcoin. Developers now face immense pressure from diverse stakeholders, making compromises difficult and raising fundamental questions about who truly controls the network's direction and whether it can maintain its core values of neutrality and decentralization.
