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 
XRP Ripple Chief Technology Officer Emeritus: BIP-110 's loss does not constitute a reason to establish a new chain.
On August 31, David Schwartz, chief technology officer emeritus of Ripple, pointed out that supporters of the Bitcoin BIP-110 fork have shifted their behavior from a governance level to an attack after rejecting the soft fork results and continuing to run an independent proof-of-work chain. His debate with fork supporter loogart revealed a core disagreement: whether failure in the consensus battle was enough reason to create a new Bitcoin chain, or whether the move itself constituted an attack on the network.
The new chain has been launched
account loogart was the first to ask questions, describing the incident from the perspective of this group: they opposed the development direction of Bitcoin Core and were told that they could fork on their own, so they used different proof-of-work algorithms to fork and were building an independent chain-but they were still called attackers. "You are not 'still' attacking," Schwartz responded to Loogart's statement."You moved from participating in governance to attacking after you refused to accept your defeat."
Loogart responded that they had accepted failure and continued to advance their own version of Bitcoin elsewhere. They believe that open dialogue, soft forks or even hard forks do not constitute an attack because no one is forced to follow,"no one is forced to follow us." But Schwartz rejected the framework, pointing out that inventing a language that made differences impossible to be rationally discussed had pushed controversy from well-intentioned differences of opinion into what he called attack and absurdity. "I'm not saying you can't pretend you have well-intentioned differences on governance issues," the XRP ledger architect added,"I mean, there's a lot of evidence that when you do, you're just pretending."
The chain he mentioned came online at a block height of 961,640 via a marked day hard fork, replacing SHA 256d with BLAKE2b as the mining algorithm. The update also introduces a new 164-byte block header, as well as a temporary rule to limit block sizes to approximately 300 kilobytes until September 2027.
The fork is already struggling before splitting again
It has been reported that the BIP-110 chain split from the Bitcoin main chain at a block height of 961,632 after failing to gain sufficient support from miners. Its supporting mining pool Roughnecks produced only two blocks before the branch stalled while the main chain maintained its normal rhythm, and the gap between the two widened to hundreds of blocks within weeks. Dashjr was also removed from his editorial position in the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal Library for alleged conflicts of interest when handling BIP-110.
The root cause of the controversy is that Bitcoin's core client lifted its old restrictions on OP_RETURN data, allowing more non-monetary content, including Ordinals and Runes, to fill blocks-blocks that BIP-110 supporters would have wanted to reserve for payment transactions. The disagreement has split Bitcoin's online community into different camps. For example, X user Robin Seyr described BLAKE2b as hostile, like Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Bitcoin SV (BSV); while another user Luke Mikic described BIP-110 as an attempt to fix a vulnerability introduced by Taproot rather than an attack on Bitcoin.
