BIP-110 is dead: The governance truth revealed by the Bitcoin anti-spam fork failure in 2026

A few chains produced two blocks in eight hours and then stalled

On the original chain, 99.85% of computing power remained unchanged. Since SegWit2x, temporary soft forks of reduced data have become the most resolute governance veto. Its supporters are now discussing replacing miners completely.

Abstract

BIP-110 (temporary soft fork of decrement data) triggered a chain split at a block height of 961,632 on August 8, 2026. A few chains stopped after producing two blocks in eight hours, while the main network continued to run at a normal pace and led by dozens of blocks.

During the mandatory window period, only 2.53% of blocks expressed support, well below the 55% activation threshold set by the proposal itself. About 99.85% of Bitcoin computing power remains on the original chain.

Michael Siler issued a 110-point article opposing the proposal, calling it "extremely dangerous" and arguing that rejecting valid, fee-paying transactions would set a precedent that could be used in the future to review any type of Bitcoin activity.

This fork exposes holders to the risk of replay attacks because BIP-110 does not include replay protection, which means that transactions broadcast on one chain may also be valid on another chain, potentially leading to unexpected funds transfers.

Backers of BIP-110 have announced plans to restart stagnant chains and switch proof-of-work algorithms to bypass miners who rejected them-a move that would create a functionally independent cryptocurrency.

Body

Bitcoin's latest governance crisis lasted about eight hours. On the morning of August 8, 2026, the node running the BIP-110 soft fork rejected a block at a block height of 961,632 that lacked the required signaling flag and began to build an alternative chain. The chain produced exactly two blocks. Then it stopped.

Bitcoin's main network continues to run at its usual ten-minute pace, not caring. By the time most U.S. traders checked their phones on Saturday morning, the split was effectively over. The BIP-110 branch inherits the complete network difficulty but has little computing power, which means that its next difficulty adjustment is expected to be in about 350 days. Two blocks in eight hours, and then silence.

The reason why BIP-110 is worth reviewing is not that it failed-many proposals fail. Rather, this failure reveals how Bitcoin governance actually works in 2026, and what happens when one faction decides that the governance system itself is the problem.

Proposed content for BIP-110

Temporary soft fork for reduced data is intended to restrict any non-financial data embedded in Bitcoin transactions. The seven rules cap most new outputs to 34 bytes, OP_RETURN to 83 bytes, and data push to 256 bytes. These restrictions are temporary and expire after 52,416 blocks (approximately a year).

The goals are clear: ordinal inscriptions, BRC-20 tokens, runes, and large Taproot data loads. Proponents believe that these uses constitute spam, causing blockchain inflation, driving up transaction fees for ordinary users, and placing a burden on node operators on storage costs, which have no monetary value. Luke Dashjr, one of the most senior members of Bitcoin's core developers, publicly supported the proposal and has argued for years that non-financial data on Bitcoin is an abuse of the protocol.

The activation threshold is set to 55% of the blocks during the difficulty period, or 1109 of the 2016 blocks. This is a move by the authors of the proposal to deliberately depart from Bitcoin's traditional 95% threshold, who acknowledge that there is little chance of an overwhelming consensus.

Why miners refused

When the mandatory signal window opened on August 7 at the block height of 961,632, the support rate was only 2.53%. That is, 51 of the 2016 blocks. Not 51%, but 51 blocks.

The gap between 2.53% and 55% is not a failure of negotiations, but a statement. Mining pools, which represent the vast majority of Bitcoin's computing power, reviewed BIP-110 and concluded that restricting transactions that pay fees violates their financial interests and their understanding of how Bitcoin works.

From the perspective of miners economics, this is not surprising. Fees are paid for ordinal and rune transactions. At the peak of inscriptions, these fees pushed average transaction costs to more than $20, bringing in considerable additional income for miners. BIP-110 proposes eliminating this revenue within a year. In the weeks leading up to activation, no major mining pools publicly supported the proposal. [TAG

However, economic arguments explain only part of the rejection. Philosophical arguments are equally decisive.

Siler's 110 Reasons and Neutrality

Michael Siler, executive chairman of Strategy and one of the most prominent Bitcoin institutional advocates, published a 110-point essay titled "110 Reasons BIP-110 is a Bad Idea." The core argument can be condensed into one sentence: Bitcoin's value stems from its neutrality, and once you start deciding which types of valid, fee-paying transactions are acceptable, you open a door that cannot be closed.

"BIP-110 turned a spam dispute into a change of consensus," Siler wrote, calling the precedent "extremely dangerous." His reasoning is that if the network can reject inscriptions today, it can reject other types of transactions tomorrow. The category of "non-financial data" is not self-defined. Multi-signature transactions, time-stamp certificates, or sidechain anchors embedded in metadata may be classified as non-financial data by future proposals that use the same logic.

Adam Back, co-founder of Blockstream and whose Hashcash proof-of-work system directly influenced Bitcoin design, also joined Siler's opposition camp. Back refuted allegations of censorship by BIP-110 supporters and warned that enforcing controversial rules without widespread support poses a greater threat to Bitcoin's integrity.

The weight of these sounds cannot be underestimated. Thaler's company holds more than 500,000 bitcoins. Back invented the core component of the Bitcoin consensus mechanism. When both men concluded that the proposal threatened Bitcoin's underlying attributes, the message to miners and node operators was unmistakable.

Unsolved replay attack problem

BIP-110 was released without replay protection. This is a technical detail with serious practical consequences.

When a blockchain is split, transactions that are valid on one chain may also be valid on another chain. Without replay protection, users who spend bitcoins on the main chain may be replayed on the BIP-110 chain on the same transaction, and vice versa. The result is that the user inadvertently transfers funds to the chain he does not want to interact with.

Bitcoin Cash, the most important fork in Bitcoin history, included replay protection from the beginning. BIP-110 does not. Its designers believe that as a soft fork rather than a hard fork, replay protection is unnecessary because the rules are a subset of existing consensus. In fact, chain splitting creates just the conditions under which replay attacks can occur.

Bitcoin node maker Start9 has issued guidelines urging users not to take action, avoid splitting coins, and wait for a few chains to die out. This suggestion proved correct within hours. However, the author knew that it might cause division, but lacked replay protection in the proposal, which reflected the internal governance failure of the BIP-110 project itself.

Respond to the block-size battle

Bitcoin has experienced similar situations before. The block size battle from 2015 to 2017 took years of development effort, produced Bitcoin cash as a permanent fork and nearly led to a SegWit2x hard fork that doubled the block size limit. That fork was canceled at the last minute because the economic nodes-the exchanges, wallets and merchants that users actually rely on-made it clear that they would not follow.

and BIP-110 is instructive, but not entirely consistent. The debate over block size is a debate about the concept of expansion. BIP-110 is a debate about what content should be linked. Both involve minority attempts to force consensus changes despite opposition from the majority. Both failed.

But the block size battle lasted for two years. The BIP-110 only took eight hours. The speed of resolution illustrates the maturity of Bitcoin governance. In 2017, the issue of miners or node operators controlling consensus has not been truly resolved. By 2026, this problem will have settled. Computing power alone cannot enforce rule changes. Economic nodes must agree. When 97.47% of miners and almost all major exchanges, wallets and infrastructure providers reject a proposal, the results are no doubt.

SegWit itself was activated through a BIP 148 user activation soft fork, bypassing the boycott miners. The lesson learned by the community is that the users who run the nodes, not the miners, are the ultimate arbiters of consensus. The failure of BIP-110 is a reverse application of the same lesson: A small group of nodes and miners cannot impose rules that the rest of the network rejects.

Turning to proof of work

The most remarkable development occurred after the fork failed. Roughnecks, a mining organization that supports BIP-110, announced that it will restart stagnant chains and continue mining until "reasonable proof-of-work changes" are completed to replace mining pools that refuse to follow.

This is an extraordinary statement. Changing the proof-of-work algorithm means abandoning SHA-256, the hash function that all existing Bitcoin ASIC miners are designed to use for calculations. The new algorithm will render all existing mining infrastructure on the chain worthless. A few branches need to attract miners running different hardware, establish new difficulty adjustment mechanisms, and persuade exchanges and wallets to launch an asset that will be a new cryptocurrency on all meaningful levels.

The precedent is Bitcoin Gold, which switched from SHA-256 to Equihash in 2017 to allow GPU mining. Today, Bitcoin gold is traded for about $1. The market's judgment on proof-of-work changes that split off from the main chain has been consistent and harsh.

Whether BIP-110 supporters will honor the proof-of-work switch remains unknown. But their discussion of this fact reveals an important issue: the dispute over inscriptions was not resolved because of the failed fork. The faction that believes non-financial data should be excluded from Bitcoin still exists. They simply concluded that Bitcoin's existing governance system would not give them the results they wanted.

What this means for future upgrades to Bitcoin

The failure of BIP-110 has far-reaching implications that transcend the inscription debate itself. Bitcoin has several pending proposals that require soft forks, including OP_CTV for contracts and various vault designs. Each will need to pass the same governance test that BIP-110 failed.

Selle is not only opposed to BIP-110 itself. He argued that Bitcoin's consensus rules should be regarded as constitutional, that changes should be "rare" and should never serve the convenience of any faction. If this framework becomes mainstream view, any soft forks will be more difficult to activate. The threshold is no longer a technical consensus, but is closer to a constitutional amendment, requiring not only majority support, but also near unanimity.

The practical effect is that Bitcoin's protocols are becoming more difficult to change both in design and culture. Whether this is an advantage or a weakness depends on different perceptions of Bitcoin demand. If the current agreement is sufficient to assume its role as a currency network, rigidity is the characteristic. If Bitcoin needs new features to remain competitive with the updated blockchain, rigidity is a risk.

BIP-110 did not answer this question. But it shows that in 2026, the threshold for changing Bitcoin rules is higher than ever before.

What changes this analysis

If a small number of chains in BIP-110 successfully implement proof-of-work switching and attract meaningful computing power, then the bifurcation will become a permanent split rather than a failed experiment. Pay attention to the online situation of the exchange. If any major exchange lists the BIP-110 chain as a tradable asset, that means the market believes it is viable. As of August 10, 2026, no exchange has indicated such a plan.

Conversely, if the number of inscriptions drops sharply due to market conditions rather than agreement restrictions, the anti-spam faction will lose its main argument. Disputes will become academic. Fee data and the number of inscriptions over the next 90 days will determine whether potential tensions persist or dissipate on their own.

Things to Watch

Mining activity on the BIP-110 branch. Any continued block production beyond the current two blocks suggests that the faction has found additional computing power. Continued silence confirms that the chain is dead.

Announcement of Change to Proof of Work. A formal proposal to switch hashing algorithms on a few chains would mark the transition from failed soft forks to deliberate hard forks and new cryptocurrencies.

Exchange and wallet support. No major exchange has launched the BIP-110 chain. Any launch will be an important signal. If there is still no online service after 30 days, it will be confirmed that the market is no longer paying attention.

Inscription fee income. If ordinal numbers and runes continue to generate significant revenue for miners in 2026, the economic argument against data restrictions will be strengthened. If inscription activity is reduced, the debate will change.

Future soft fork proposal. Focus on how OP_CTV and other pending proposals adjust their activation strategies based on BIP-110 failure. Any proposal to lower the activation threshold below 95% now carries a precedent for BIP-110 rejection.

FAQ

What is BIP-110?

BIP-110, officially known as the Reduced Data Temporary Soft Fork, is a one-year soft fork proposal designed to restrict any non-financial data in Bitcoin transactions. Seven rules will limit output size and data push to limit the technology used for ordinal inscriptions, BRC-20 tokens, and runes. The proposal entered the mandatory signaling phase on August 7, 2026 at a block height of 961,632.

What happened to the BIP-110 chain?

The BIP-110 chain split from the Bitcoin main network on August 8, 2026. It produced two blocks in about eight hours and then stalled. A few chains inherit the complete network difficulty, but only have about 0.15% of computing power, making their next difficulty adjustment estimated in 350 days. The main network was operating normally and was leading by dozens of blocks in a few hours.

Did anyone lose money during a fork?

As of August 10, there were no confirmed losses reported due to chain splitting itself. However, since BIP-110 does not include replay protection, the fork poses a risk of replay attacks. Any transaction broadcast on one chain may be replayed on another chain. Node operators and wallet providers advise users to avoid conducting transactions on a small number of chains.

Why did Michael Siler oppose BIP-110?

Thaler believes that the value of Bitcoin stems from its neutrality and that any legal transaction that pays the required fee should be handled without discrimination. He issued a 110-point article saying the proposal was extremely dangerous because it would set a precedent for rejecting certain types of transactions, and that power could be extended to review other types of Bitcoin activity in the future.

What is an ordinal number and why is it controversial?

Ordinals are a protocol that assigns a unique identifier to each individual Satoshi, allowing users to engrave data such as images, text, or code directly onto the Bitcoin blockchain. Critics call it spam, causing chain expansion and raising fees. Proponents believe that any transaction that pays the required fee is a legitimate use of Bitcoin's block space. This dispute is the basis of the BIP-110 dispute.

How does BIP-110 compare to the block size battle?

The block size battle from 2015 to 2017 was a debate over the concept of expansion that lasted for two years and produced Bitcoin cash as a permanent fork. BIP-110 was a debate over what data should be linked and was resolved within eight hours. Both involve minority attempts to force consensus changes despite opposition from the majority. The speed of resolution of BIP-110 shows that Bitcoin's governance mechanism has matured since 2017.

What happens next in the BIP-110 chain?

BIP-110 supporters have announced plans to restart mining and possibly switch proof-of-work algorithms, which will create a functionally independent cryptocurrency. No major exchanges have launched a few chains. If the proof-of-work change is implemented and the exchange goes online, the fork will become a permanent split. If neither happens, the chain will likely be abandoned.

Will similar anti-spam proposals succeed in the future?

In theory, future proposals for non-financial data could succeed if they received sufficient support, but the failure of BIP-110 significantly raised the bar. Any similar proposal would need to address neutrality arguments, include replay protection, and demonstrate support well above the 55% threshold that BIP-110 failed to meet. Current trends favor rigid agreements rather than controversial changes.

This article is educational analysis only and does not constitute investment advice.