admin
The Bitcoin network experienced a significant technical divergence on Sunday as the branch enforcing Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110) stalled at block 961,633, while the primary non-enforcing chain continued to advance, creating a substantial gap in blockchain height. According to data from the BIP-110 monitor and on-chain records, the enforcing branch had produced only two blocks since the activation of mandatory signaling, whereas the main Bitcoin network had progressed to block 961,721. This 88-block discrepancy highlights the lack of hashpower support for the controversial proposal, which seeks to implement stricter rules regarding the types of data permitted within Bitcoin transactions.
The divergence began following the commencement of a mandatory signaling window at block 961,632 on Saturday. Under the parameters of the BIP-110 proposal, nodes running the enforcing software began rejecting any blocks that did not signal support via version bit 4. However, with only a small fraction of the total network hashpower backing the change, the enforcing chain has struggled to find new blocks, leading to a near-total cessation of progress on that specific branch. As of 10:19 am UTC on Sunday, the latest block on the enforcing chain had been mined approximately 12 hours prior, signaling a critical lack of momentum for the initiative.
Technical Background and the BIP-110 Mandate
BIP-110 is a proposal designed to address what some developers and miners characterize as "spam" on the Bitcoin blockchain. The rise of protocols such as Ordinals and Inscriptions has led to an increase in non-financial data being embedded into Bitcoin blocks, often utilizing the OP_RETURN script or the witness portion of transactions. Proponents of BIP-110 argue that this data bloat increases the cost of running a node and distracts from Bitcoin’s primary purpose as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system.
To enforce these new standards, BIP-110 utilizes a mechanism known as a User-Activated Soft Fork (UASF) style approach, where nodes and miners who opt-in agree to ignore any blocks that do not comply with the new rules. The mandatory signaling phase was triggered at block 961,632. During this period, enforcing nodes are programmed to reject any block that does not explicitly signal support through the specified version bit. In contrast, standard Bitcoin nodes—those not running BIP-110 enforcement—continue to follow the longest chain rule, accepting both signaling and non-signaling blocks.
The success of such a transition relies heavily on a majority of hashpower adopting the new rules. Without a majority, the enforcing nodes end up on a minority chain that the rest of the network ignores. Data leading up to the activation showed that only 51 of the preceding 2,016 blocks, representing approximately 2.53% of the network’s hashpower, had signaled support for the proposal. This low level of support made a chain split almost inevitable once the mandatory enforcement window opened.
Chronology of the Chain Split
The timeline of the current stall reveals a rapid divergence between the two factions of the network. The signaling window was established to monitor miner sentiment over a full difficulty adjustment period of 2,016 blocks.
- Pre-Activation Phase: Throughout the week leading up to Saturday, signaling for BIP-110 remained stagnant at roughly 2.5%. Despite the low numbers, the enforcing nodes were programmed to begin rejecting non-compliant blocks at a predetermined block height.
- Activation (Saturday): At block 961,632, the mandatory signaling rule went into effect for BIP-110 nodes. Immediately, any block produced by the majority of the network that did not include the version bit 4 signal was viewed as invalid by the enforcing branch.
- The First Two Blocks: Records from Ocean, a decentralized mining pool, show that a pseudonymous mining group known as "Roughnecks" successfully produced the first two blocks for the enforcing branch. These blocks were mined using Ocean’s Decentralized Alternative Templates for Universal Mining (DATUM) protocol, which allows individual miners to construct their own block templates rather than relying on a centralized pool operator.
- The Stall (Sunday): After block 961,633 was recorded, the enforcing branch failed to produce further blocks. Because the difficulty of mining a block is set based on the total hashpower of the entire network during the last adjustment, the 2.5% of miners on the enforcing chain found themselves facing a difficulty level meant for 100% of the network.
- The Widening Gap: While the enforcing branch remained frozen, the rest of the Bitcoin network continued at its normal pace of approximately one block every ten minutes. By Sunday morning, the main chain had reached 961,721, leaving the BIP-110 branch 88 blocks behind.
The Role of Ocean and DATUM Protocol
The participation of the "Roughnecks" group through the Ocean mining pool is a notable aspect of this event. Traditionally, mining pools decide which transactions and signaling bits to include in a block, giving pool operators significant control over network upgrades. Ocean’s DATUM protocol shifts this power back to individual miners.
By using DATUM, the Roughnecks were able to signal for BIP-110 and mine on the enforcing branch even if the broader Ocean pool or other major pools did not officially support the move. This decentralization of template construction is often touted as a way to prevent censorship and give individual participants more agency in Bitcoin’s governance. However, in this instance, it also facilitated the creation of a minority chain that lacks the cumulative proof-of-work necessary to remain viable or competitive against the main network.
Opposition from Bitcoin Leadership
The stall of the BIP-110 branch comes amid vocal opposition from some of the most influential figures in the Bitcoin ecosystem. The primary concern among critics is not necessarily the goal of reducing blockchain bloat, but the method by which BIP-110 attempts to achieve it.
Michael Saylor, Executive Chairman of MicroStrategy and a prominent Bitcoin advocate, has expressed significant reservations. While Saylor noted that he understands the desire to maintain the purity of the Bitcoin ledger, he argued that the BIP-110 approach threatens the "neutral rules" that govern the network. Saylor’s critique centers on the idea that Bitcoin’s value is derived from its predictable, consensus-based governance. Introducing mandatory signaling that is not backed by a clear majority, he suggests, could undermine the stability of the protocol.
Adam Back, the CEO of Blockstream and a pioneer in the cypherpunk movement, has been even more direct in his criticism. Back warned that consensus-level changes like those proposed in BIP-110 could damage Bitcoin’s long-term credibility. Specifically, he pointed out the technical risk that such changes could make certain unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs) unspendable. If a transaction containing "arbitrary data" is deemed invalid by a subset of the network, the funds associated with that transaction could become trapped or "burnt" on the enforcing chain, leading to a loss of fungibility and user confidence.
Economic and Technical Implications of the Stall
The current state of the BIP-110 branch presents a classic "minority chain" problem. In the Bitcoin protocol, difficulty adjustments occur every 2,016 blocks. The difficulty is calculated based on how long it took to mine the previous 2,016 blocks.
Because the enforcing branch only has about 2.5% of the total network hashpower, it is effectively mining 40 times slower than the main chain. Under normal conditions, 2,016 blocks take two weeks to mine. For the BIP-110 branch, mining the remainder of this adjustment period could theoretically take over a year (approximately 80 weeks) at current hashpower levels.
Without a massive influx of miners switching to the BIP-110 branch, the chain is unlikely to reach the next difficulty adjustment in a reasonable timeframe. This creates a "death spiral" scenario where the chain is too difficult to mine for the few miners who support it, and the lack of progress discourages others from joining.
Furthermore, the 88-block gap (and growing) creates a significant economic barrier. For the BIP-110 branch to ever become the "real" Bitcoin, it would need to not only catch up to the main chain but surpass it in cumulative proof-of-work. Given the current disparity, the cost of such an "attack" or reorganization would be astronomical and is considered statistically impossible under current market conditions.
Analysis of Consensus and Governance
The BIP-110 event serves as a live case study in Bitcoin governance and the "spam wars" that have characterized the network’s development over the past two years. The rise of Ordinals has created a rift between those who view Bitcoin as a strict financial settlement layer and those who see it as a permissionless data layer.
The failure of the BIP-110 branch to gain traction suggests that the broader Bitcoin market—including miners, exchanges, and large-scale holders—is currently unwilling to support a soft fork that filters transactions based on data content. This reflects a broader preference for "censorship resistance," where any transaction that pays the necessary fee is considered valid, regardless of the data it carries.
Moreover, the event highlights the resilience of the Bitcoin consensus mechanism. The fact that a minority group can attempt a fork without disrupting the main chain demonstrates that the network is robust against uncoordinated or unpopular changes. While the BIP-110 nodes are currently "stuck" on their own version of the truth, the rest of the global economy continues to use the main Bitcoin chain without interruption.
Current Outlook and Future Prospects
As of the latest updates, the BIP-110 enforcing branch remains at a standstill. The "Roughnecks" group has not produced a third block, and no other major mining entities have signaled an intention to move their hashpower to the minority chain. For the proponents of BIP-110, the path forward is narrow. They must either convince a significant portion of the mining community to join their cause—risking their own revenue to mine a chain with no current market value—or the proposal will likely fade into obscurity as a failed experiment in protocol enforcement.
The broader Bitcoin community continues to monitor the situation, as it provides valuable data on how UASF-style proposals behave in the modern era of high-fee competition and diverse use cases. While the "spam wars" are far from over, the current stall of BIP-110 indicates that, for now, the status quo of the Bitcoin protocol remains firmly in place, supported by the overwhelming majority of the network’s computational power.
Cointelegraph and other industry observers will continue to track the block heights and signaling percentages. If the gap continues to widen at the current rate of approximately 144 blocks per day, the BIP-110 branch will soon be hundreds, then thousands, of blocks behind, making any potential reconciliation or "victory" for the enforcing nodes a mathematical impossibility. This event underscores the fundamental reality of Bitcoin: code may propose, but the hashpower disposes.
