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
BCH 
BSV 
BTC David Schwartz, former chief technology officer of Ripple, criticizes BIP-110 supporters over the Bitcoin fork controversy
BLAKE2b hard fork and emerging controversy
A public discussion on the X platform (formerly Twitter) originated from some users describing the use of BLAKE2b mining algorithm as an "attack on Bitcoin" and comparing previous controversial forks such as Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV. The BLAKE2b involved in this incident refers to an upcoming Bitcoin hard fork plan supported by developer Luke Dasher. The plan proposes to replace Bitcoin's traditional SHA-256d mining system with the BLAKE2b algorithm and is scheduled to be launched on September 1.
Lugert, a supporter of BIP-110, joined the discussion, questioning the logic of characterizing the fork as an attack. Lugert believes that forking and choosing a new proof-of-work mechanism is a response to dissatisfaction with Bitcoin's core development direction, which allows voluntary participation and chain choices.
"We oppose the direction taken by the Bitcoin core development team. They let us fork. We did fork and choose a different proof of work. Now we are building our own chain. But somehow, we are still said to be attacking them." Lugt said.
Schwartz responded that when the original proposal was not accepted, advocating alternative chains changed from participation in governance across borders to direct confrontation. He pointed out in a half-jokingly tone that the shift from participation to "attack" occurs when all parties refuse to accept the results of governance decisions.
"You are not 'still' attacking. When you refuse to accept the results you have lost, you have shifted from participating in governance to attacking." Schwartz said.
BIP-110 and legacy chain "fix" issues
Lugt responded that supporters were not refusing to accept the results, but instead pursuing a new chain after failing attempts to update the traditional Bitcoin system. He questioned why open dialogue, soft forking or further voluntary forking should be considered an attack if participation is not mandatory.
Schwartz questioned the idea that Bitcoin's legacy chain had problems that needed to be "fixed" and criticized the assumption that developers with different opinions had the right to unilaterally decide what improvements were needed.
Technical background and latest developments
Bitcoin Knots, a Bitcoin full-node client led by Luke Dasher, is currently trying a new separation chain after the original BIP-110 attempt. The latest fork abandons Bitcoin's SHA-256d proof-of-work mechanism and introduces the BLAKE2b algorithm to avoid relying on existing Bitcoin miners. So far, no major exchanges, wallets or lightning networks have implemented the fork that promised to support this proposal.
In early August, a group of BIP-110 nodes separated from the Bitcoin mainnet, forming a minority chain. The chain dug up only two blocks in eight hours and then stalled. The soft fork proposal aims to restrict non-financial data on the blockchain, primarily affecting protocols such as Ordinals, BRC-20, and Runes-which generate inscriptions, tokens, and arbitrary data payloads.
Small Dictionary: BIP-110, or Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110, is an initiative aimed at implementing a soft fork that aims to limit the block space of non-financial data, specifically targeting the increasingly popular protocols such as Ordinals, BRC-20 and Runes-which embed arbitrary data or create tokens outside of Bitcoin's original transaction model. The attempt failed to gain momentum due to low adoption rates and limited community support, highlighting the complexity and controversy of experiments within the Bitcoin ecosystem.
Forking/Proposal Comparison
BIP-110 (Original Proposal): Mining algorithm SHA-256d, status: stalled after mining 2 blocks, exchange support: none
BLAKE2b Forking : Mining algorithm BLAKE2b, status: planned to be launched on September 1, exchange support: none as of now
