Discussion on the BIP-110 proposal and the potential role of Fractal

Recently, community discussions around the BIP-110 proposal have been heating up. The proposal suggests temporarily restricting the size of certain data fields at the consensus layer to correct incentive distortions caused by standardized support for arbitrary data, and to refocus priorities on enhancing Bitcoin’s function as a currency.

We believe that such discussions themselves exemplify the strength of Bitcoin as a decentralized consensus system. Over the past decade, the Bitcoin network has always allowed different philosophies and technical approaches to coexist. From the SegWit2x controversy in 2017 to the subsequent Bitcoin Cash fork, the system has demonstrated ongoing evolution despite disagreements.

Currently, the node signaling ratio for BIP-110 is trending upward. According to publicly available data:

• January 25, 2026: 2.98% (729 / 24,482 nodes)
• February 23, 2026: 7.99% (1,995 / 24,981 nodes)

BIP-110 Ready Nodes

This indicates an increase of about 5% within a month. Whether the proposal can ultimately reach activation threshold remains uncertain and requires ongoing observation.

In this context, we believe that products and services within the Bitcoin ecosystem should be prepared for multiple possible outcomes at the technical level, rather than making judgments based on emotional positions or preset assumptions.

Fractal’s Design Intent and Role

One of the core design goals of Fractal Bitcoin is to provide an environment capable of supporting more complex states and data representations without altering the mainnet’s consensus rules.

If in the future the mainnet adopts stricter restrictions on certain data types at the consensus level, Fractal can serve as a technically compatible extension layer, offering an alternative path for asset state continuity.

As we have discussed before:

For Ordinals, censorship on Bitcoin is always a concrete and clear risk. If one day Bitcoin maintainers take the stance that “Ordinals are spam and should be blocked in future versions,” Fractal Bitcoin can mirror and preserve all inscriptions from the mainnet with minimal additional data overhead, amounting to only about 1/38 of the data size of the mainnet inscriptions.

It is important to emphasize that:

• Fractal is not a substitute fork
• It is not a confrontational response to mainnet decisions
• It does not presuppose any specific governance outcome

Its role is more akin to a “buffer extension layer,” providing continuity guarantees for assets during different stages of consensus evolution.

Possible Scenarios for “Temporary Restrictions”

BIP-110 is described as a one-year temporary restriction.

In such a scenario, if assets on the mainnet are constrained, Fractal can serve as a temporary hosting environment; if the restrictions are lifted after a year, assets can return to the mainnet.

The specific technical implementation path still has room for further research and optimization, but the principles are clear:

• Do not disrupt mainnet consensus
• Do not force migrations
• Do not create market panic
• Only offer an optional solution

Our Position

As ecosystem participants, we respect the final consensus outcome of Bitcoin.

Regardless of the direction of BIP-110, the healthy development of the ecosystem should not be based on opposition, but on technical preparedness and rational discussion.

The existence of Fractal is not to create division, but to provide a technical buffer space when disagreements arise.