Key Takeaways
Foundry’s BIP-110 vote runs a 51% hashrate-weighted bar before it will signal Yes.As of 8:40 a.m. EDT on July 27, 2026, BIP-110 signaling sits near 2.64% as block 961632 approaches on or around August 9, 2026.Ocean and small mining operations lead signaling while Antpool, ViaBTC , and other major pools have not moved to support BIP-110.
At the time of writing at 8:40 a.m. Eastern time on July 27, the chain tip stood at block 959842. Roughly 1,790 blocks remain before block 961632, the point where nodes running BIP-110 software begin rejecting blocks that do not signal version bit 4. At Bitcoin’s average ten-minute pace, that height should arrive on or around Aug. 9, 2026.
BIP-110, formally called the Reduced Data Temporary Softfork, proposes limiting the size of certain data fields used in Bitcoin transactions. The rules primarily target Ordinals-style inscriptions, oversized OP_RETURN payloads, and similar data-heavy uses while leaving ordinary finance-centric bitcoin transfers, key-path Taproot spends, and standard Lightning channel operations unchanged.
If activated, the restrictions begin at block 965664 and expire automatically after 52,416 blocks, or roughly one year.
Support Is Growing, Just Not Fast Enough
The signaling charts have looked different over the past month than they do at first glance.
A few weeks ago, BIP-110 signaling barely registered, hovering below 1% during some periods. Since then, support has climbed into the 3% range. That’s a meaningful increase in percentage terms, but Bitcoin activations are driven by who is signaling, not simply how many blocks carry the bit.
Ocean continues to account for most of the signaling activity. The rest of the hashpower is built almost entirely by independent miners and smaller operators. The miners currently signaling for BIP-110 include Roughnecks, SoV, BIP110 Generic, Barefoot Mining, 234 Alberta, 888, Peer to Peer Money, Black Jade Advisors, Sazmining, Crestmont Fabrics, Datum Miner, SpammersGFY, Moonwalk, PyBLOCK-Datum, Just For Krypto, and JAMIN.
Meanwhile, Foundry, Antpool, ViaBTC, and F2pool, the four pools responsible for most of the network’s hashrate, have shown little movement. Until one of those operators changes course, gradual increases from smaller participants are unlikely to materially change the activation picture.
The software ecosystem reflects the same divide. The only implementation enforcing the proposal is a Bitcoin Knots fork. Reachable nodes running that software stand at around 22% today, leaving enforcement concentrated among a relatively smaller share of the network compared to Bitcoin Core nodes.
Foundry Holds the Biggest Swing Vote
Among the major mining pools, Foundry has taken an interesting approach.
Around July 17, 2026, the company asked customers to vote on whether the pool should begin signaling for BIP-110. Rather than making the decision internally, Foundry tied the outcome directly to its clients’ hashrate, according to an email sent to pool participants.
“The voting window on Foundry USA Pool™ will be open through the signaling window close date, ahead of block 961,632,” Foundry USA pool wrote on its BIP-110 resource page.
Voting power is based on each customer’s average hashrate. Clients who do not respond are automatically counted as “No,” and Foundry’s default position remains to signal against the proposal. Only if “Yes” votes exceed 51% of participating weighted hashrate will the pool switch all of its blocks to signaling support.
That decision matters because Foundry represents between roughly 23% and 33% of Bitcoin’s global hashrate, depending on the measurement period. If a pool of that size flipped overnight, the signaling charts would change immediately.
As of today, there has been no indication that such a shift has occurred.
Foundry has also avoided endorsing either side publicly. Instead, its client resource page links to the BIP specification, the original bitcoin-dev discussion, criticism from Jameson Lopp, and commentary from Adam Back, Michael Saylor, Luke Dashjr, and others, allowing customers to evaluate the proposal themselves.
What Happens if the Window Opens Without Broad Support?
The mechanics become much more consequential once block 961632 arrives.
If current signaling levels persist, nodes enforcing BIP-110 will reject blocks mined by most of the network because they lack the required version bit. Those nodes will instead follow the relatively small number of signaling blocks.
Legacy nodes will behave differently. They will continue accepting both signaling and non-signaling blocks while following the chain with the greatest accumulated proof-of-work, as Bitcoin has always done. Several independent observers have built dedicated monitoring sites that track activation parameters, with some even simulating how the process could unfold under different scenarios.
That creates the possibility of two competing chains, but not two equally viable ones. The chain recognized by Bitcoin Core and mined by the overwhelming majority of hashrate would continue producing blocks at its normal pace. A minority chain consisting only of signaling miners would advance much more slowly until reaching its next 2,016-block difficulty adjustment.
That potential outcome explains why much of the debate has shifted away from inscriptions and toward the activation process itself.
A Different Activation Strategy
BIP-110 follows a deployment path that differs from Bitcoin’s two most recent major soft forks.
The proposal launched on Dec. 1, 2025, using a modified BIP-9 process. It required 1,109 of 2,016 blocks, or 55%, signaling during a single difficulty period to lock in early. If that threshold was never reached, the proposal advances toward a forced lock-in at block 963,648 before activating one difficulty period later at block 965,664.
Between those milestones sits the mandatory signaling window.
From block 961,632 through 963,647, nodes enforcing BIP-110 reject every block that does not signal version bit 4, regardless of how much proof-of-work supports it. That approach differs from both Segwit and Taproot, where non-upgraded nodes continued accepting the strongest proof-of-work chain throughout activation.
The closest historical comparison is the 2017 BIP-148 user-activated soft fork (UASF), which also attempted to pressure miners through mandatory signaling requirements. That confrontation ultimately ended without a lasting chain split after sufficient hashrate shifted before the deadline. BIP-148’s UASF ultimately served more as leverage than actual activation.
Whether BIP-110 follows the same path depends largely on whether one or more major pools change position before Aug. 9.
Why Supporters Want the Change
BIP-110 was authored under the name Dathon Ohm. Earlier versions circulated under the BIP-444 designation before being accepted into the BIPs repository.
BIP-110 Supporters argue that inscriptions, BRC-20-style tokens, and increasingly large OP_RETURN payloads raise the cost of operating a full node, distort Bitcoin’s fee market, and shift network resources away from Bitcoin’s intended purpose as a payment and settlement system.
“Removing rules is a hardfork,” BIP-110 supporter and Bitcoin Knots developer Luke Dashjr explained on X in early July. “That includes scheduled rules like subsidy halvings, and yes, even BIP110. Rejecting BIP110 is a contentious hardfork attempt.”
Dashjr added:
“And unlike softforks, hardforks need consensus to succeed. There is no consensus on rejecting BIP110.”
Opponents generally agree that spam exists but disagree over whether BIP-110’s activation mechanism is the appropriate solution. “OP_RETURN blockspace usage hasn’t increased much since Bitcoin Core v30 was released. Oversized OP_RETURNs may be up slightly, but still they consume less than 0.1% of blockspace,” Alex Thorn, Galaxy Digital’s head of research, wrote on X.
Thorn continued:
“BIP-110 is an extremely disruptive & dangerous response given the tiny impact from these prunable [transactions].”
The Final Days Could Still Change Everything
The next two weeks will likely come down to three developments.
The first is whether one of the largest mining pools begins signaling support. The second is whether major exchanges publicly clarify which chain they would recognize if competing chains emerge after block 961,632. The third is what miners actually do once the mandatory window opens, because signaling percentages leading up to the deadline only tell part of the story.
The trend has been moving in BIP-110’s favor, climbing from below 1% to roughly 3% as the deadline approaches. Even so, the proposal remains far from demonstrating broad miner backing. Unless one of Bitcoin’s largest pools changes course in the days ahead, the mandatory signaling window appears set to open with support still concentrated among a relatively small portion of the network.
