On July 12, 2026, the Bitcoin community experienced a rare synchronicity surrounding two seemingly unrelated events: on one side, there was an intense debate over the BIP 110 “filtering fork” proposal, where supporters wished to reduce spam transactions and protect network operational quality; on the other side, a single-chip Bitaxe ASIC miner, with a computing power of only about 1 TH/s, unexpectedly mined the 957382nd full Bitcoin block through a public mining pool with a 0% fee, earning a reward of 3.1382 Bitcoins, worth approximately $200,580 at that time, with a single source describing the event's probability as "once in 16,000 years." At the proposal level, Blockstream co-founder and CEO Adam Back publicly opposed BIP 110, pointing out that the proposal attempts to impose constraints on others' transaction behaviors at the consensus layer, exhibiting tendencies of intervention and surveillance, potentially eroding Bitcoin's decentralization, security, and neutrality; Strategy founder Michael Saylor was also confirmed to be on the opposing side, though he did not elaborate on his reasons, further amplifying the volume of this disagreement. Concurrently, this single-chip miner "hit once" within the power structure dominated by large miners and mining pools, proving through an extremely low probability event that Bitcoin mining still retains the theoretical possibility for tiny participants to earn complete block rewards, which many community members see as a symbolic case of the network’s continued openness to marginal computing power. Thus, the concerns for security and efficiency surrounding BIP 110 and the beliefs in decentralization and neutrality reflected by the single-chip miner were presented on the same day, collectively pushing the boundaries of Bitcoin's spirit into the spotlight, forcing the entire ecosystem to confront a question: should the system prioritize optimizing operational quality or staunchly uphold the underlying principles of openness, fairness, and non-intervention at any cost?

BIP 110 Filtering Fork Proposal Sparks Controversy

At the center of this debate is BIP 110. It is described as a "filtering fork" mechanism: applying stricter filtering on transactions entering blocks at the consensus layer, aiming to curb transactions deemed as "spam," lighten the burden on nodes, and prevent the network from being slowed down by meaningless data. Supporters' narrative is very straightforward—if Bitcoin is to sustain global settlement and value storage functions in the long term, it must set boundaries at the protocol level against abusive behaviors, ensuring that every write on the chain is more "clean" and has a reason to exist, thereby maintaining overall operational quality and security redundancy.

However, this seemingly technical proposal quickly tore open the value chasm within the community. Opposition arose concentrated on a concern: when filtering occurs within consensus rules rather than individual node strategies, does it imply that Bitcoin is starting to “take sides” at the protocol level? Will it change the probabilities of certain transactions being recorded or excluded in practice, thereby eroding the two red lines of decentralization and neutrality? More troublingly, to date, publicly available materials still lack detailed technical parameters for BIP 110, specific filtering standards, and implementation timelines, leaving most discussions at the level of paths and principles: should consensus rules be allowed to make value judgments on transaction behaviors, or should we choose to bear the cost of spam transactions and reject any form of protocol-level intervention?

Adam Back and Saylor's Opposition

Adam Back does not deny the goodwill of BIP 110 supporters. He acknowledges in public statements that many people stand by the proposal out of the motive to curb spam transactions and maintain network operational quality. However, he believes the real caution lies not in the word “filter” itself but in its implications once it falls to the consensus layer: once protocol rules limit which transactions can be recorded and which should be blocked, it essentially imposes constraints on others' transaction behaviors at the consensus layer, inherently carrying tendencies of intervention and surveillance, pushing nodes and miners into a "referee" role rather than being mere rule enforcers.

Following this logic, Adam Back further pointed out that BIP 110 is not just a simple parameter optimization but may touch upon some of Bitcoin's core principles. He worries that once protocol-level filtering is used to distinguish "good transactions" from "bad transactions," it could hardly avoid causing long-term erosion on decentralization, security, and neutrality, conflicting with Bitcoin's spirit as an open, indiscriminate settlement network. Around the same time, Michael Saylor was also confirmed to publicly oppose BIP 110; however, validated materials detailing his reasons for opposition have yet to emerge, which has made current discussions more focused on the red line that Adam Back has clearly thrown out: whether consensus rules should be allowed to intervene and judge users' transaction behaviors.

Single-chip Bitaxe Mines Block 957382

Just when the community was embroiled in the debate over “whether to install filters at the consensus layer,” a single-chip Bitaxe ASIC miner with a computing power of only about 1 TH/s unexpectedly "struck it lucky" in a network dominated by large mining pools and professional machine rooms. It participated in mining through a public mining pool with a 0% fee, competing across the network to quickly find a valid hash, successfully mining the 957382nd full Bitcoin block, which recorded a block reward of 3.1382 Bitcoins, worth about $200,580 at the time. A single source even described this occurrence as a "once in 16,000 years" rare event, highlighting the impossible task this single chip accomplished within the real computing power landscape.

The current mining landscape is almost monopolized by large miners and mining pools, with small participants typically only able to pool their weak computing power into public pools for overall security contributions. However, the Bitcoin mining mechanism has always been built on probability; even with only about 1 TH/s of computing power, there is theoretically a chance to compete for complete block rewards. The birth of block 957382 turned this "theoretical possibility" into a real transaction and reward output on the chain, perceived in the discussions around BIP 110 as a symbolic case of the Bitcoin network’s continued openness to small participants, reminding us that the current rules still allow any scale of computing power to participate in the same probability game.

Small Miner's Miracle and Reflection of Decentralization Spirit

In a landscape where computing power is almost dominated by large mining pools, a single-chip Bitaxe ASIC with about 1 TH/s mined the 957382nd full block, earning a reward of 3.1382 Bitcoins, approximately $200,000, described as a "once in 16,000 years" rare event. This is not some romanticized legend but a real manifestation of the Bitcoin mining probability mechanism under extreme samples: every unit of computing power is treated as a ticket in the same lottery system, where the size of the computing power only determines the number of tickets and does not alter the rules themselves. Because of this, even in an era dominated by large participants, small miners can still leverage public pools to join the community of network security, with their chances of producing blocks extremely small but never stripped from them at the protocol level.

In stark contrast to this "single-chip miracle" is the debate surrounding BIP 110—should consensus rules intervene more proactively in transaction and block selection, using "filtering forks" to resist spam transactions? For those who insist on the principle of open participation, even if the rules merely take a step further to begin differentiating “transactions worth packing” from “those not worth attention” at the protocol level, it means redrawing a boundary: whose behavior is more likely to be recorded on-chain, and whose expression is more likely to be ignored. Adam Back sees this inclination as the beginning of intervention and surveillance, fearing erosion of decentralization, security, and neutrality. Michael Saylor's opposition deepened this vigilance. The success of the single-chip miner reminds people that Bitcoin still allows very small participants to have real and complete opportunities, while the discussions on technical governance surrounding BIP 110 pose an even tougher question: every optimization to the protocol, is it maintaining this opportunity or unintentionally redefining "who can participate and to what extent?".

Next Steps in the Game: How Will Community Consensus Respond to the Controversy

In the parallel narratives of BIP 110 and the single-chip Bitaxe miner, Bitcoin faces both the pressure of spam transactions and computing power centralization in the real world, while also needing to uphold three red lines of decentralization, security, and neutrality. This tension has become the core of 2026. As of July 12, BIP 110 remains in the phase of community discussion, with no widespread implementation information yet available, and clear opposition from key figures like Adam Back means that any attempt to "filter forks" through the consensus layer must cross a higher threshold of consensus; in contrast, that single-chip Bitaxe miner that mined block 957382 under extremely low probability and earned a reward of 3.1382 Bitcoins is seen as an on-chain footnote indicating the network still opens its doors to small participants. What is truly worth observing moving forward is not just whether BIP 110 is shelved or revised, but whether the community can find a finer compromise between protecting against spam transactions and avoiding excessive intervention: what alternative proposals might emerge, how these proposals will be scrutinized and debated in the governance process, and how they will ultimately reshape the actual position of small computing powers like Bitaxe in the network will all become key observational dimensions in judging whether Bitcoin can continue to maintain a balance between principles and reality.

Join our community, let’s discuss and become stronger together!
AiCoin exclusive Hyperliquid benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin exclusive Aster benefits: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。