Why Is Adam Back Against the BIP-110 Proposal to Eliminate Spam on Bitcoin?

• Adam Back’s Stance on BIP-110
• The Slippery Slope of Censorship
• The Innovation vs. Spam Debate
• The Impact on Ordinals and Runes
• Bitcoin’s Reputation at Stake
• Regulatory and Tax Headwinds
• FAQ

Adam Back, the founder and CEO of Blockstream, has been vocal in his criticism of the BIP-110 soft fork proposal aimed at reducing spam on the bitcoin network. Back dismisses the proposal as "stillborn," arguing that it could lead to censorship and harm innovation. Alongside other Bitcoin advocates like Jameson Lopp and Peter Todd, Back warns that such measures might attract regulatory pressure and undermine Bitcoin's neutrality. This article delves into the debate, exploring the potential risks of BIP-110 and the broader implications for Bitcoin's future.

Adam Back’s Stance on BIP-110

Adam Back isn’t mincing words when it comes to the BIP-110 proposal. While he acknowledges that reducing spam is desirable, he believes the proposal’s hidden agenda—judging and controlling which scripts or use cases are permissible—poses a far greater threat. Back’s concerns echo those of other Bitcoin maximalists who argue that censorship could set a dangerous precedent. "If authorities believe Bitcoin can be altered by pressuring a few entities, they’ll inevitably try to do so," warns Jameson Lopp, Casa’s security chief. The fear is that selective censorship could erode Bitcoin’s core value: its resistance to external control.

The Slippery Slope of Censorship

Lopp describes BIP-110 as a "slippery slope toward centralization." He points to past chain splits like Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Bitcoin SV (BSV) as cautionary tales. "Once you start expelling 'bad actors,' it becomes an endless game of whack-a-mole," Lopp explains. The proposal’s temporary nature also raises eyebrows—what happens if "temporary" becomes permanent? Critics argue that even if BIP-110 succeeds in curbing spam, its restrictions could stifle innovation, especially since the proposal doesn’t effectively filter spam in the first place.

The Innovation vs. Spam Debate

On one side of the debate are Bitcoin minimalists who champion the network’s programmability. "Bitcoin isn’t just money; it’s programmable," Lopp wrote in a February 2026 blog post. This programmability enables use cases like Ordinals and Runes, which some consider spam but others see as legitimate innovations. On the opposing side, proponents of BIP-110, like Dathon Ohm, argue that the proposal aims to "redirect priorities toward enhancing Bitcoin as money." Ohm’s GitHub post claims the fork WOULD "limit data field sizes at the consensus level" to correct distorted incentives.

The Impact on Ordinals and Runes

Protocols like Ordinals and Runes, which allow data to be inscribed on individual satoshis, are squarely in BIP-110’s crosshairs. Critics of these protocols argue they clog the network with non-monetary data. However, supporters counter that these innovations unlock new use cases for Bitcoin beyond mere transactions. Martin Habovštiak, a skeptic of BIP-110, demonstrated the proposal’s flaws by broadcasting a 66 KB image of Luke Dashjr—a BIP-110 supporter—crying on the blockchain. "If this isn’t spam, what is?" Habovštiak quipped.

Bitcoin’s Reputation at Stake

Beyond technical concerns, there’s the issue of Bitcoin’s reputation. Its resistance to censorship and undue influence has been a selling point for years. BIP-110 risks muddying that narrative, especially if it leads to a chain split. "A divided Bitcoin is a weakened Bitcoin," warns Lopp. The proposal could also delay future upgrades, as developers focus on implementing and maintaining the soft fork.

Regulatory and Tax Headwinds

Bitcoin faces other challenges, too. The Bitcoin Policy Institute warns that the window for Congress to extend minimal tax exemptions for Bitcoin is closing. Meanwhile, Coinbase has denied rumors it’s lobbying to exclude Bitcoin from these exemptions—a MOVE that could hinder Bitcoin’s circulation as currency. With midterm elections looming, legislative priorities are shifting, leaving Bitcoin’s future uncertain.

FAQ

Why does Adam Back oppose BIP-110?

Adam Back believes BIP-110 could lead to censorship and harm Bitcoin’s innovation. He argues that the proposal’s restrictions might attract regulatory pressure and undermine Bitcoin’s neutrality.

What are the risks of BIP-110?

Critics warn that BIP-110 could centralize control, stifle innovation, and even trigger a chain split. Its temporary nature also raises concerns about long-term impacts.

How does BIP-110 affect Ordinals and Runes?

BIP-110 targets protocols like Ordinals and Runes, which some consider spam. Supporters of these protocols argue they enable new use cases for Bitcoin beyond transactions.

Could BIP-110 lead to a chain split?

Yes. Past proposals like Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV resulted in chain splits. If BIP-110 is contentious, a similar split could occur.