It does not fully remove arbitrary data
Demand adapts and payloads move. Miners are asked to enforce a new consensus boundary without the benefit of actually ending the pressure that motivated the proposal.
Core objection:
From a miner standpoint, BIP-110 adds coordination burden and political exposure while undermining transparent fee discovery. That is a poor trade even before considering split risk.
Private deal flow becomes more important
When public paths close, direct miner access matters more. That shifts power toward large pools and connected actors rather than toward open fee competition.
Activation uncertainty is expensive
Pools must decide which software to run, how exchanges will respond and whether minority-chain scenarios will create avoidable losses.
Miners become the target of future purity campaigns
Once this path is normalized, block producers will face repeated pressure to enforce the next list of unacceptable transactions.
Fee signals get distorted
Instead of one visible auction for blockspace, the network gets a mixture of public pricing and private negotiation that is harder to evaluate and easier to centralize.
Smaller operators lose relative influence
Custom routing, political handling and direct commercial relationships favor larger players. That is the wrong direction for Bitcoin's mining landscape.
Reference
This page follows the miner-side critique highlighted by Jason Hughes in his July 15, 2026 X article, "BIP-110 - My Notes to Miners."