The core of Lopp’s argument is not just what BIP-110 changes, but how it tries to activate. He points to the proposal’s 55% miner-signaling threshold for a user-activated soft fork and says that low bar materially increases the probability of two competing chains if the ecosystem is not aligned.
He also stresses that BIP-110 nodes would reject non-compliant blocks outright, which raises coordination risk compared with soft forks that old nodes can continue to follow without enforcement conflicts.
Lopp is especially pointed on the mandatory activation posture at block height 961,632. In one of the sharpest passages, he writes: “This is not a neutral, low-drama deployment posture. It’s dogmatic bullying. […] you cannot pretend it’s low-risk.” He ties that warning to a broader point: even if one views UASF tactics as legitimate, the proposal’s design increases the odds of a messy failure mode if miners, exchanges, wallets, and infrastructure providers do not converge in time.
On mining support, Lopp says the gap is more straightforward. At the time of publication, he writes miner signaling was “precisely […] zero,” and he cites public opposition from F2Pool while arguing miners have limited incentive to back a proposal that could reduce fee revenue. That point reinforces his broader thesis that BIP-110 supporters are overestimating social signaling and underestimating the role of economically significant actors in Bitcoin upgrade politics.
Lopp’s post ultimately reads as a warning that the immediate issue is not simply whether BIP-110 activates, but what the campaign reveals about where Bitcoin’s internal dispute over neutrality, censorship resistance, and block-space usage is heading. Even a failed fork push, in his framing, can still impose real costs by forcing operators and businesses to plan around low-probability but high-impact coordination failure.
At press time, Bitcoin traded at $62,791.
