Several Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs) have been proposed but never activated, often due to lack of consensus, security concerns, or changes in Bitcoin’s development priorities. Here are some notable ones:
1. BIP 101 - Increase Block Size to 8MB (2015)
• Proposed by Gavin Andresen, this BIP suggested increasing the block size limit from 1MB to 8MB, doubling every two years until reaching 8GB.
• It was controversial and never activated due to fears of centralization and network strain.
2. BIP 102 - Temporary 2MB Block Size Increase (2015)
• Another block size increase proposal, this time to 2MB as a temporary measure.
• It was seen as a compromise but never gained enough support.
3. BIP 109 - 2MB Block Size via Miner Signaling (2016)
• Proposed by Bitcoin Classic, it suggested a 2MB block size increase if 75% of miners signaled support.
• It failed to reach activation thresholds and was ultimately abandoned.
4. BIP 148 - User-Activated Soft Fork (UASF) for SegWit (2017)
• This BIP aimed to force Segregated Witness (SegWit) activation by rejecting non-SegWit blocks after a certain date.
• While BIP 148 itself did not activate, its pressure led to miners adopting BIP 91, which enabled SegWit activation in a different way.
5. BIP 75 - Payment Identity & Interoperability (2016)
• Proposed a standardized way for wallets to exchange identity and payment information.
• It was not widely adopted due to privacy concerns.
6. BIP 300 & BIP 301 - Drivechains (2017, Updated 2023)
• Introduced a way to implement “sidechains” using a new security model.
• Controversial due to security risks, and has yet to gain widespread consensus.
7. BIP 50 - Chain Fork Post-Mortem (2013)
• Not a proposal for activation, but rather a documentation of a major chain fork in Bitcoin’s history.
• Highlights issues that could arise in future soft forks.
These BIPs reflect Bitcoin’s ongoing debate over scalability, security, and decentralization.
/ BTCMAXI
npub1nk…847sw
2025-03-29 15:49:28
in reply to nevent1q…4vhe
Author Public Key
npub1nk3a0f40m0xn3fpkxlk9mgvsjs2h4cgzcd8l8rzyq8sr0n4n596q2847swSeen on
wss://relay.primal.netPublished at
2025-03-29 15:49:28Event JSON
{
"id": "ffa10e68364816ecfa89333b5f628338bfa63db78c3b42272c91ad58da265f5f",
"pubkey": "9da3d7a6afdbcd38a43637ec5da19094157ae102c34ff38c4401e037ceb3a174",
"created_at": 1743263368,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"7972536d840e4ba5b2639dcbe8b56f1a914babf0d6288b61a9c5b985620a111b",
"wss://@nos.lol",
"root"
],
[
"p",
"e96911258fabb7c235ffbb052c96a07bf91f3ef91cfa036e4f442fd23320261f",
"",
"mention"
]
],
"content": "Several Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs) have been proposed but never activated, often due to lack of consensus, security concerns, or changes in Bitcoin’s development priorities. Here are some notable ones:\n\n1. BIP 101 - Increase Block Size to 8MB (2015)\n\t•\tProposed by Gavin Andresen, this BIP suggested increasing the block size limit from 1MB to 8MB, doubling every two years until reaching 8GB.\n\t•\tIt was controversial and never activated due to fears of centralization and network strain.\n\n2. BIP 102 - Temporary 2MB Block Size Increase (2015)\n\t•\tAnother block size increase proposal, this time to 2MB as a temporary measure.\n\t•\tIt was seen as a compromise but never gained enough support.\n\n3. BIP 109 - 2MB Block Size via Miner Signaling (2016)\n\t•\tProposed by Bitcoin Classic, it suggested a 2MB block size increase if 75% of miners signaled support.\n\t•\tIt failed to reach activation thresholds and was ultimately abandoned.\n\n4. BIP 148 - User-Activated Soft Fork (UASF) for SegWit (2017)\n\t•\tThis BIP aimed to force Segregated Witness (SegWit) activation by rejecting non-SegWit blocks after a certain date.\n\t•\tWhile BIP 148 itself did not activate, its pressure led to miners adopting BIP 91, which enabled SegWit activation in a different way.\n\n5. BIP 75 - Payment Identity \u0026 Interoperability (2016)\n\t•\tProposed a standardized way for wallets to exchange identity and payment information.\n\t•\tIt was not widely adopted due to privacy concerns.\n\n6. BIP 300 \u0026 BIP 301 - Drivechains (2017, Updated 2023)\n\t•\tIntroduced a way to implement “sidechains” using a new security model.\n\t•\tControversial due to security risks, and has yet to gain widespread consensus.\n\n7. BIP 50 - Chain Fork Post-Mortem (2013)\n\t•\tNot a proposal for activation, but rather a documentation of a major chain fork in Bitcoin’s history.\n\t•\tHighlights issues that could arise in future soft forks.\n\nThese BIPs reflect Bitcoin’s ongoing debate over scalability, security, and decentralization.",
"sig": "745094b786a08b987a66cbfcf43449203e9d5f25d386cecdc232d98ba7b85fc4582f1b27c6e73fd004b5080f10f636aca79a35cc06b560a6189fe43a00b5c0e7"
}