Why Bitcoin veterans oppose BIP-110
This is where the key complication emerges. Blockstream CEO Adam Back, a figure whom Satoshi Nakamoto himself mentioned in the Bitcoin white paper, along with other industry veterans such as Jameson Lopp and Wang Chun, have come out categorically against BIP-110.
First and foremost, they cite the threat to neutrality. Back believes that attempts to censor transaction types at the consensus level are more harmful to the network than the spam itself, which he has been actively fighting.
Second is the risk of confiscation. The proposal could make some existing UTXOs unusable, which effectively amounts to freezing user funds. Finally, there is the risk of a network split. Activating a soft fork without broad agreement, with a proposed threshold of 55% instead of the traditional 95%, could lead to the blockchain splitting into multiple branches.
well a problem is 110 is an intentional literal downgrade. it breaks userspace. the bip freezes utxos, breaks miniscript, disables OP_IF and disables upgrade hooks. also temporary softfork is nuts.
— Adam Back (@adam3us) March 15, 2026
Adding fuel to debate, another well-known Bitcoiner under the nickname Hodlnaut accused Adam Back of arrogance and of ignoring the problem of protocol governance.
BIP-110 will most likely go down in history as a great filter. If the network rejects it, Bitcoin will reaffirm its resistance to censorship. If it accepts it, BTC will take its first step toward more centralized governance, where rules can change according to the prevailing agenda.