Blockstream CEO Adam Back warns that Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 could harm network credibility amid debate over Ordinals spam on the Bitcoin blockchain

The Bitcoin network is at the center of a heated debate over how much non-financial data should be allowed in transactions.

Blockstream CEO Adam Back has openly criticized a new proposal called Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110, or BIP-110, warning that it could undermine the network’s credibility as a secure monetary system.

BIP-110, introduced by pseudonymous Bitcoin developer Dathon Ohm in December, aims to temporarily reduce the amount of data that can be embedded in Bitcoin transactions.

The goal is to limit images, videos, audios, and other so-called “data abuse” that has been flooding the blockchain, particularly through Ordinals-like activity.

Adam Back Voices Concerns

While Back agrees that Bitcoin should remain “sound money,” he believes that BIP-110 goes too far.

Posting on X, he described the proposal as a “lynch mob attempt” to force changes without broad consensus.

He emphasized that spam is merely an annoyance and poses no serious security risk.

Back also warned that the implementation of BIP-110 could freeze funds by rendering some unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs) unspendable — a risk he sees as too high for a temporary fix.

Why BIP-110 Emerged

BIP-110 is designed as a 12-month experiment to curb arbitrary data while giving developers time to consider a long-term solution.

The proposal has found support among validators running Bitcoin Knots, which has been gaining market share from Bitcoin Core since mid-2025.

The controversy traces back to October 2025, when Bitcoin Core developers removed the 80-byte limit on the OP_RETURN function.

This change allowed more non-financial transactions to flood the network, sparking a debate over what Bitcoin should prioritize.

Bitcoin Core’s share of nodes fell from 98% to 77.2%, while Bitcoin Knots rose to 22.7%.

Back has long opposed the removal of the OP_RETURN limit, arguing that Ordinals-like spam “has no place in the timechain.”

Economic Arguments From Supporters

Not everyone sees non-financial transactions as harmful.

Leaders in the Bitcoin Ordinals ecosystem, like Leonidas, argue that these transactions have contributed over $500 million in fees, bolstering network security at a time when the block subsidy halves roughly every four years.

However, recent data shows that Ordinals activity has waned.

By the end of 2025, inscription fees were bringing in less than $10,000 per day for miners, far below the peak of nearly $10 million collected on December 16, 2023.

This decline raises questions about the long-term economic incentive for miners to support non-financial transactions.

The Debate Over Network Philosophy

The clash over BIP-110 highlights a deeper philosophical tension in the Bitcoin community: should the network prioritize strict financial utility, or should it allow experimental uses like Ordinals that generate additional fees but risk network bloat?

Back and other critics argue that even temporary limits could erode trust in Bitcoin as a store of value.

Supporters say curbing non-financial transactions too aggressively could stifle innovation and reduce miner revenue at a time of declining subsidies.

What’s Next?

BIP-110 is still in the early adoption phase, with roughly 7.5% of Bitcoin nodes signaling readiness — all Bitcoin Knots clients.

Over the coming months, the community will monitor its effects if implemented, including potential risks like frozen UTXOs and impacts on miner economics.

Developers and validators will need to weigh whether the benefits of reduced spam outweigh the potential downsides for network integrity.

Meanwhile, discussions are ongoing about longer-term solutions that could balance Bitcoin’s security, usability, and philosophy.

Summary

Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110) has sparked controversy over how to manage non-financial data on the blockchain.

Adam Back has opposed the proposal, citing risks to credibility and the possibility of frozen funds, while supporters argue it could temporarily reduce spam and allow evaluation of long-term solutions.

The debate reflects broader questions about Bitcoin’s purpose, network economics, and governance as validators, miners, and developers navigate technical and philosophical challenges.