A fresh Bitcoin debate has broken out on X after Mr.Hodl linked Roger Ver’s old censorship criticism with new complaints from GrassFedBitcoin about BIP-110 discussion channels. Summary Mr.Hodl linked Roger Ver and GrassFedBitcoin as Bitcoin’s BIP-110 moderation dispute moved back online again. Adam Back rejected censorship claims, saying BIP-110 was ignored because critics already debated it extensively. The proposal seeks to restrict non-monetary Bitcoin data, but opponents warn about fork risks ahead. Mr.Hodl posted a short message placing Roger Ver and GrassFedBitcoin side by side. The post came with screenshots showing Ver’s 2019 claim that BTC had failed on censorship resistance by censoring parts of its community. The second screenshot showed GrassFedBitcoin arguing that BIP-110 critics should engage directly if they believe the proposal is wrong. The account claimed that several Bitcoin discussion spaces had become hard places for supporters to defend the proposal. GrassFedBitcoin also said bitcointalk had become quiet, GitHub posts were being marked as spam, and Reddit accounts were being banned for discussing Bitcoin Knots or BIP-110. The account also said the BIP repository allowed the proposal to be discussed and merged. Those claims have not been confirmed by the named platforms in the material reviewed. Still, they pushed the BIP-110 debate back into a wider Bitcoin governance discussion. Adam Back rejects the censorship claim Blockstream CEO Adam Back responded by rejecting the idea that BIP-110 was being blocked through a hidden campaign. He argued that the proposal was being ignored because many people had already reviewed it and rejected it. Back wrote, “it’s being ignored because it’s a stupid idea.” He added that people were tired of discussing it after going over the same points last year. it’s being ignored because it’s a stupid idea, and people are tired of talking about it after explaining everything ad nauseum last year. no conspiracy required. if they want to fork off, @mrhodl will be glad to sell you fork coins for more BTC.— Adam Back (@adam3us) May 31, 2026 He also said no conspiracy was needed to explain the lack of support. In his view, supporters who still want the rules can fork away from Bitcoin. Back’s response reflects long-running opposition to BIP-110 among some Bitcoin developers and infrastructure figures. Critics argue that using consensus rules to restrict transaction content could damage Bitcoin’s neutrality. BIP-110 targets non-monetary data BIP-110 seeks to limit arbitrary data stored in Bitcoin transactions. It targets uses linked to inscriptions, Ordinals and Runes by restricting certain large data fields. Supporters say the proposal protects Bitcoin’s role as money and lowers the burden on node operators. They argue that block space should not become a general data storage layer. Opponents say the proposal creates bigger risks than the activity it tries to stop. They warn that it may break existing use cases, freeze some transaction outputs or split the network if only a small group enforces it. The latest reports show BIP-110 has low node support and no clear major mining pool support. That makes activation difficult unless support changes before the proposed enforcement date. Fork risk stays at center of debate The debate now sits between two positions. Supporters frame BIP-110 as a defense of Bitcoin’s monetary purpose, while critics frame it as a risky attempt to police transaction content. Mr.Hodl’s post added a cultural layer by connecting the current dispute to older claims that Bitcoin forums and social channels silence opposing views. Back’s response pushed the debate back to technical and market support. He argued that silence around the proposal is not censorship, but a sign that many people see the idea as weak.
