Through this post, I would like to share the ins and outs of the new Bitcoin proposal BIP-110 and why I am mildly opposed to BIP-110. It's still the matter of inscriptions that's causing trouble. Inscriptions have been stuffed with a large amount of text, images, and even videos onto the Bitcoin blockchain. The extreme conservative camp represented by Luke Dashjr believes that this is stuffing garbage into the pure Bitcoin network, so they are extremely disgusted with inscriptions. The Bitcoin Core group has some sympathy for inscriptions. Especially in the Core v30 version client, the transaction forwarding and miner template policies in the op return area have been relaxed, increasing from 83 bytes in the past to 100000 bytes. This means that the Core group is standardizing or officially supporting on chain data storage. The extreme conservative camp completely broke through their defense, so under their joint efforts, they launched the protagonist BIP-110 that we are going to introduce today. The core essence of BIP-110 is: Within the next year, new output will be limited to 34 bytes (op return 83 bytes), data insertion will be limited to 256 bytes, and so on, completely rejecting inscriptions BRC-20， Strike hard at "evil ways" such as Runes. Their expected voting threshold for miners is 55%, but now it is only around 1% in reality. But that doesn't mean that if it's less than 55%, there won't be a soft fork. If the support rate of miners is less than 55%, then go to AmericaF (user activation). SegWit used AmericaF to successfully force miners to agree back then. BIP-110， At the specified time, if the threshold is not reached, it will be enforced. Although the author of BIP-110 is Dathon Ohm on the surface, I believe that the Luke/Knot/Ocean camp is behind it, so they have some energy. According to Bitref statistics, as of today, Knot client market share ranks second, and Ocean mining pool computing power ranks seventh. After being enforced, Knot/Ocean and related sporadic supporters will adopt this rule and completely reject inscriptions. However, considering the current 1% support rate, this will not significantly affect the normal use of inscriptions, at most with occasional delays. If the exchange does not make a statement, it is unlikely that there will be any forked coins. Finally, let me share my opinion. I am a Bitcoin fundamentalist, so I can understand the feelings of BIP-110 supporters, but I am also a pragmatist. A few days ago, a researcher from Duke University calculated that the current cost of attacking Bitcoin for one week is $6 billion. Not too high or too low, but what about the next halving? If we want Bitcoin to maintain a high security threshold even after several halvings, we must ensure that miners have sufficient income. Bitcoin needs to survive first before it can have space for purity and fundamentalism. Inscriptions, although no longer popular, undoubtedly bring additional income to miners, especially after multiple halvings in the future, this extra handling fee will be a great help. Let's talk about survival first, then about faith. So, although I can understand them, I still mildly oppose the unilateral deployment of BIP-110.