0% of miners support—these people still want to hard fork Bitcoin? Wake up. This isn’t an upgrade; it’s a coup.

Bitcoin is being hijacked by a small group of people.

As August approaches, a proposal called BIP-110 is about to enter a mandatory signaling window.

What does this proposal want to do?—limit non-financial on-chain data such as Ordinals and Runes, push the OP_RETURN data capacity back down, and ban writing any arbitrary data longer than 256 bytes.

Sounds pretty reasonable? Clean up junk data and make Bitcoin “cleaner”?

But here’s the problem: almost nobody on the entire Bitcoin network supports it.

As of July 12, the miner signaling support rate is—0%.

You read that right. Zero.

Since it was proposed in December 2025, the historical peak has never exceeded 0.79%. The share of nodes running the BIP-110 software is only in the single digits. No mainstream mining pool has announced support.

It requires 55% miner signaling to activate. And now it’s still not even 1%.

With a 0% support rate, what gives it the audacity to force its way through at the beginning of August?

Even more surreal: the people opposing it are precisely the most heavyweight figures in Bitcoin.

Strategy founder Michael Saylor directly goes in: “There are 110 things more dangerous to Bitcoin than junk data.”

He says BIP-110 turns an argument over junk information into a consensus change that can directly render certain currently valid, fee-paid transactions invalid.

Blockstream CEO Adam Back—cited by Satoshi in the Bitcoin whitepaper—put it even more sharply: “Bitcoin will politely tell you ‘no’.” If supporters insist on doing this, then they can fork on their own—“but Bitcoin won’t join.”

Bitcoin’s richest holders and Bitcoin’s most core developers speak with one voice: get lost.

So who are the supporters?

Ocean Protocol founder Luke Dashjr. What’s this person’s background? In 2014, in the Gentoo Linux Bitcoin software package he maintained, he quietly added an address blacklist that automatically blocked transfers to gambling services. Node operators only realized something had been tampered with when transactions started failing.

Later he apologized and withdrew it. But in 2014 he already wanted to make decisions for the whole network—and in 2026 he’s still doing the same thing.

Someone who once unilaterally made decisions for the entire network now wants to decide for everyone what can be on-chain and what cannot be on-chain.

History never repeats itself, but it always rhymes.

What does this “civil war” mean for Bitcoin?

First, in the short term: uncertainty is a downside.

Bitcoin’s current price is trading around $63,000. ETF outflows are ongoing, the Iran–U.S. conflict is escalating, and the market is already under pressure. Now there’s also the added risk that the chain could split at the start of August.

Once a small number of nodes really form a separate chain, what will exchanges do? Which chain will CME’s Bitcoin futures settle to? The UTXOs of 1,700,000 BTC (about $10.7B) could become “unspendable” under the new rules.

This isn’t a technical discussion—this is a real, ticking financial bomb.

Second, in the long term: what’s truly dangerous isn’t junk data—it’s the precedent itself.

Saylor said it plainly: “This precedent is the real danger.”

Today, they can restrict Ordinals because there’s “too much junk data.” Tomorrow, they can block transactions because “a certain address is too active.” The day after tomorrow, they can review/censor blocks because they “don’t align with certain values.”

The most precious thing about Bitcoin isn’t “fast,” isn’t “cheap”—it’s that nobody can change the rules.

Once you open this door—by a small group of people, with 0% miner support, bypassing consensus, and pushing it through by force—is Bitcoin still Bitcoin?

Let’s say something that cuts deep:

“Ordinals aren’t a threat to Bitcoin.

The ones who think Ordinals are a threat—and want to make decisions for everyone—are the real threat.”

After more than ten years, Bitcoin has gone through the block size wars, through SegWit, and through countless rounds of FUD. Every time, the market chose not to split.

This time won’t be an exception either.

But the mere existence of this proposal already sounds the alarm:

Bitcoin’s governance model is being tested at the boundaries by a small group of “ambitious schemers.” #PreIPOs第二期OpenAI认购 #LAB两日腰斩53% #世界杯冠军预测 $BTC $ORDI $SATS