Exchange Ranking
Top Exchanges
24h Volume Ranking
Popularity Ranking
Exchange BTC Balance
Proof of Reserves
Decentralized Exchanges
Funding Rate
Funding Heatmap
Liquidation Data
Max Pain
Long/Short Ratio
Whale L/S Ratio
Binance/Okex/Huobi L/S
Bitfinex Margin L/S
ETF Tracker
Solana ETF
XRP ETF
Hong Kong ETF
Bitcoin Treasuries
Crypto Reversal
Ethereum Reserves
HyperLiquid Wallet Analysis
Hyperliquid Whale Watch
Large Transactions
On-chain Movement
Bitcoin ROI
Stablecoin Market Cap
Options Analysis
News
Articles
Economic Calendar
Features
Wallet
Contract Calculator
Security
Collections
Watchlist
Following
BTC The BIP-110 soft fork quickly disintegrated: It stalled after only two blocks were dug up.
This week, the Bitcoin soft fork built on BIP-110 separated from the main chain at a block height of 961,632, but almost never actually started. Roughnecks, the mining pool that supported the fork, only dug out two blocks before the entire network's computing power abandoned them.
This fork is intended to test whether a determined group of node operators can force miners to comply with data garbage filtering rules. However, it just proves that when computing power refuses to follow, the minority has little bargaining power.
Stops within hours of fork
BIP-110 requires miners to signal support before block 961,632, otherwise the mandatory signaling rule will be activated. When AntPool dug up the first unsignaled block, the node running Bitcoin Knots split into its own chain. Roughnecks found blocks 961,632 and 961,633 on this branch, and there has been no progress since. The Bitcoin original chain continued to advance at a normal speed, reaching block 961,651, leading by 18 blocks in one day.
The core problem is difficulty. The mining difficulty of Bitcoin has just been adjusted to 127.48T, and both chains have inherited this goal. Since only a very small portion of the BIP-110 branch is finally able to support it, the blocking speed of the BIP-110 branch is much lower than the usual ten minutes.
BIP-110 supporter Matthew Kratter admitted that a small number of chains needed "huge changes" to catch up, but changes never occurred. When Michael Saylor talked about this fork, he pointed out that the gap had exceeded 80 blocks and said that about 99.85% of Bitcoin's computing power remained on the main chain.
Lyn Alden made a similar distinction on August 9, saying that most miners, economic nodes and exchanges continue to support non-forked chains. "It's not the miners who are in control," she wrote."There was no consensus at all at this fork."
BIP-110 supporters reject this conclusion. Luke Dashjr wrote on August 9 that it was wrong to claim that the proposal failed. He had previously argued that BIP-110 was not challenged because there was no reverse fork.
However, Roughnecks issued a tweet asking participants mining on the BIP-110 chain under the current algorithm to suspend until further notice. Investor Fred Krueger pointed out that the lead has gone from "153 blocks to 2."
Bitcoin prices were almost unaffected. BTC, trading at around $65,000, rose slightly on the day, with a weekly gain of nearly 4%, but it was still down about 45% from a year ago.
The controversy is not just about the number of blocks, but also about data.
The root cause of the dispute can be traced to Bitcoin Core removing old restrictions on OP_RETURN data, which allowed more non-monetary data (such as Ordinals and Runes) to fill blocks, and BIP-110 supporters want this space to be reserved for payment transactions.
Farside Investors warned weeks ago that the repair carries risks. Wallets using Miniscript may still generate addresses based on the soon-to-be-banned Taproot script, and any bitcoins sent to these addresses after activation will become non-expendable. In addition, the old script format holding more than 1.7 million BTC--payment to public key output--also faces new restrictions, although existing funds can still be used normally.
Not everyone who supports the goals of BIP-110 agrees with the approach of this attempt. Author Secure Sovereign supports underlying fixes but disagrees with this activation path. He said the move made BIP-110 "a remote minority with no practical path to catch up with the main chain" and believed miners never faced the real risk of being bifurcated.
A few days later, Bitcoin developer Murry proposed removing Luke Dashjr from his BIP editor position, citing a conflict of interest in his handling of the proposal, a controversy that continues to simmer on the Bitcoin mailing list.
