Bitcoin hasn't fought over its core rules like this since the Blocksize Wars. There are 2 fights happening at once. One's over jpegs and the other's over quantum computers. Here’s what’s going on: #1 - BIP-110 This is mainly aimed at Ordinals, Runes, and other data people store inside Bitcoin transactions. The proposal would temporarily block some of the methods used to jam large amounts of data into blocks. Your BTC stays safe, existing Ordinals stay where they are, but minting new inscriptions gets way harder for roughly a year. Here’s the case for it. Blockspace is limited. So every full node has to download and verify whatever gets added, and supporters think jpegs and tokens are making Bitcoin more expensive to use and harder to run over time. Where it gets messy is Bitcoin has no idea WHAT the data is. It only sees how the transaction was built. The same transaction structures used for jpegs today could power better wallets, custody systems, contracts, or financial applications tomorrow. So the real fight is should Bitcoin change its core rules to block a use case that already follows the rules and pays fees? The rollout has problems of its own. Back in February, a Bitcoin Core dev found a consensus bug in the activation software. A running node could accept a block that a freshly synced BIP-110 node would reject, leaving them on different versions of Bitcoin's history. It got patched, and a later audit called the fix clean. But it shows why consensus changes need far more testing than a normal software update. As of late June, 0.31% of hashrate was signaling support. The threshold is 55%. F2Pool has publicly refused, and no other major pool has joined. The real deadline is early August. Around block 961,632, mandatory signaling kicks in and BIP-110 nodes start rejecting every block that doesn't signal support. At current levels, that's nearly every block. I’m watching whether those nodes end up on their own minority chain or their operators quietly back down. IMO cutting useless data is a fair goal. But a consensus change is the strongest tool Bitcoin has, and without clear evidence of serious harm, the fix creates more risk than the problem it solves. #2 - BIP-361 This is an early plan for protecting Bitcoin from future quantum computers. It would introduce safer wallet types, give users roughly five years to move their BTC, and later stop old vulnerable addresses from receiving or spending coins. Nothing changes today bc quantum computers can't currently break Bitcoin. But wallet migrations take years, and Bitcoin moves slowly by design. The point is to lock the rules in before the threat becomes real, especially for old wallets whose public keys are already visible and for dormant coins whose owners may never return. There are two diff fights happening but the question is how high should the bar be for changing Bitcoin's rules?(Edgy - The DeFi Edge 🗡️)