**[Bitcoin BIP-110 Proposal Sparks Intense Community Debate, Controversy Over Adjusting Protocol Upgrade Approval Threshold]** BlockBeats News, July 20: The Bitcoin community is embroiled in heated debate over the temporary soft fork proposal BIP-110. The proposal aims to reduce the blockchain's usage by inscriptions, Runes, and other non-monetary data by limiting the size of arbitrary data in transactions (e.g., restricting most new transaction outputs to 34 bytes, restoring the 83-byte limit for OP_RETURN, and temporarily limiting Taproot-related functionalities), thereby "protecting Bitcoin's core attribute as a currency." The proposal employs a miner signaling activation mechanism and sets an early August deadline for a user-activated soft fork (AmericaF), attempting to address incentive distortion issues caused by the standardization of arbitrary data support. One of the most contentious aspects of BIP-110 is its modification of the approval mechanism for Bitcoin protocol upgrades. Under current rules, an upgrade typically requires 95% miner support to activate; however, BIP-110 proposes drastically lowering this threshold to 55%. Supporters and opponents of BIP-110 hold sharply opposing views. Proponents argue that this move could reduce the burden on node operators and combat "spam" transactions. Opponents, including prominent developers Jameson Lopp and Michael Saylor, criticize the proposal for potentially undermining Bitcoin's neutrality, hindering Layer 2 development and script upgrades, and even freezing some existing UTXOs. Dathon Pwn identified a "BlockSlop" consensus vulnerability: nodes enforcing BIP-110 might not revalidate old blocks, posing a risk of blockchain history divergence. Michael Saylor stated that the governance risks of BIP-110 outweigh the issues it seeks to address. Currently, miner support for the proposal is extremely low, and community discussions are intense, leaving the activation prospects uncertain. Bitcoin governance is once again being put to the test. BIP-110 not only challenges technical details but also highlights deeper disputes over who has the authority to decide Bitcoin's future. While some view the proposal as a necessary cleanup measure, critics warn that forcibly restricting data could set a precedent for censorship and fail to truly prevent spam transactions, instead shifting the problem to harder-to-manage areas like UTXO bloat. The Bitcoin community is closely monitoring developments ahead of the August deadline, as this event could become a significant milestone in the evolution of the Bitcoin protocol.