Why BIP110 Won’t Change Bitcoin | Mr Hodl & Wicked

— BIP110 lacks genuine consensus and meaningful support compared to SegWit, which had 90–95% threshold and near-unanimous ecosystem backing. BIP110's 55% threshold is described as an attack vector, not a legitimate upgrade path.

— The distinction between user-activated soft forks (UASF): BIP148 in 2017 succeeded because network was under genuine duress from Bitmain (empty blocks, fee pressure, censorship), justifying emergency action. BIP110 has no equivalent crisis and minimal real adoption.

— Node counts are inflated through Sybil attacks; running a non-validating node that doesn't accept transactions or serve the network is a net negative, not a consensus signal. Real node support for BIP110 is negligible.

— Miners, not pool operators or node runners, control hash rate. Attempts to coerce US-based mining pools via legal pressure is a threat to Bitcoin's decentralization; miners holding Bitcoin would rationally refuse to support what they see as an attack.

— Arbitrary data on Bitcoin (JPEGs, ordinals) should be addressed by fee markets and user choice, not protocol changes that set a dangerous precedent for future censorship.

— The economic majority—not developers, miners, or nodes alone—ultimately defines Bitcoin's rules. A forked chain without majority support is not Bitcoin, even if proponents claim otherwise.

— If BIP110 reaches the mandatory signaling period (block 906132), watch for a potential chain split in early August. The legacy chain will gain a permanent one-block lead; BIP110 will fall behind rapidly and likely fail within days, proving consensus cannot be manufactured by a vocal minority.

— Do not conflate different historical events: SegWit had overwhelming evidence of consensus (95% threshold, exchanges, miners, developers all aligned), extreme network stress (fees, censorship), and a flag day. BIP110 has none of these. Fee markets will resolve spam concerns without protocol changes.