BIP-110 Soft Fork Fails After Two Blocks

Bitcoin Soft Fork Fails to Gain Traction, Mines Only Two Blocks

A Bitcoin soft fork designed around BIP-110 has effectively collapsed after splitting from the main chain following block 961,632 this week. The initiative, backed by the mining pool Roughnecks, managed to mine just two blocks before the overwhelming majority of the network’s hashpower abandoned it.

The intended purpose of the split was to test whether a determined group of node operators could compel miners to adhere to stricter rules regarding data spam. However, the outcome demonstrated the limited influence a minority possesses when the network’s hashrate refuses to cooperate.

BIP-110 required miners to signal their support by block 961,632, after which a mandatory signaling rule would take effect. When AntPool mined the first block without the required signal, nodes running Bitcoin Knots diverged onto their own chain. Roughnecks successfully mined blocks 961,632 and 961,633 on this alternative branch, but no further blocks were found. Meanwhile, Bitcoin’s original chain continued its regular progression, reaching block 961,651 within approximately a day, establishing an 18-block lead.

The divergence was primarily dictated by mining difficulty. Bitcoin’s mining difficulty had recently adjusted to 127.48 terahashes, a target that both chains inherited. With only a minuscule fraction of the total hashpower supporting the BIP-110 branch, blocks were found at a significantly slower rate than the network’s typical ten-minute interval.

Matthew Kratter, a proponent of BIP-110, acknowledged that the minority chain would require “massive change” to regain parity. This change never materialized. By the time Michael Saylor commented on the situation, he estimated the gap to be over 80 blocks, stating that approximately 99.85 percent of Bitcoin’s hashpower remained on the main chain.

Lyn Alden echoed this sentiment on August 9, noting that the majority of miners, economic nodes, and exchanges continued to operate on the non-forked chain. “It’s not that miners are in control,” she wrote. “The fork just didn’t have consensus.”

Supporters of BIP-110 have contested this assessment. Luke Dashjr wrote on August 9 that claims of the proposal’s failure were inaccurate. Earlier, he had argued that BIP-110 faced no opposition because no counter-fork had emerged.

However, Roughnecks issued a tweet requesting that miners on the BIP-110 chain cease operations under the current algorithm until further notice. Investor Fred Krueger pointed out that the block lead had widened from “153 to 2.”

Bitcoin’s price remained largely unaffected by these developments. BTC traded around $65,000, showing a modest daily increase and nearly 4% gain for the week, though still down approximately 45% from a year prior.

The underlying dispute stems from Bitcoin Core’s decision to remove its previous limit on OP_RETURN data. This change allowed for the inclusion of more non-monetary data, such as Ordinals and Runes, in blocks, which BIP-110 proponents wanted to reserve exclusively for payment transactions.

Farside Investors had previously warned of potential risks associated with the proposed fix. Wallets utilizing Miniscript could still generate addresses based on Taproot scripts slated for deprecation, rendering any bitcoin sent to them unspendable after activation. Pay-to-public-key outputs, an older script format holding over 1.7 million BTC, also faced new restrictions, although existing holdings remained spendable.

Not all supporters of BIP-110’s objectives agreed with the execution of this attempt. Writer Secure Sovereign, who backed the underlying fix but not this specific activation strategy, stated that the effort left BIP-110 as “a distant minority with no realistic path to catching the main chain,” arguing that miners never faced a genuine risk of being forked off themselves.

Days later, Bitcoin developer Murch initiated proceedings to remove Luke Dashjr from his role as a BIP editor, citing his handling of the proposal as a conflict of interest. This dispute is ongoing on Bitcoin’s mailing list.