Two blocks out: How Bitcoin's BIP-110 fork lost momentum

BIP110 Temporary soft fork: Only two blocks were generated on the first day, which made it a fatal shortcoming because of insufficient computing power.

BIP110-a temporary soft fork designed to restrict the recording of non-financial data on Bitcoin-did cause the chain to split at a block height of 961,632. However, its branch produced only two blocks in eight hours. The Internet reminds us once again that rules that are not supported by miners are mostly just dead letters.

Two blocks in eight hours: BIP110 branch lags behind

Bitcoin has been running on two parallel chains since block 961,632. The first chain brings together the vast majority of miners, exchanges and users; the second chain brings together BIP110-compliant nodes that reject any blocks that lack the activation signal required by the proposal. This split achieves the recently announced critical phase of BIP 110.

The trigger point for splitting is simple. At an altitude of 961,632, AntPool produced a block that did not contain the signal required by BIP 110. Ordinary nodes accepted it, but nodes that had activated the proposal refused: from that moment on, the two groups no longer agreed with the same chain. Subsequently, a block matching the bit 4 signal was found through Roughnecks of the OCEAN mining pool. This block provides a separate branch for BIP 110 supporters to continue to develop. The fork was born, but the computing power to push it forward was minimal.

According to an article published at 09:08 UTC on August 9, 2026, the branch produced only two blocks in the first eight hours, while the main chain produced 48 blocks in the same period. The gap suggests that these are not two networks of equal strength: Bitcoin is functioning normally on one side, while confirmations on the BIP 110 branch have become extremely rare. As of 11:40 UTC, the public BIP110 monitor showed that the main chain had reached block 961,725, or 94 blocks had been followed since the beginning of cycle 477. None of these blocks emits a BIP 110 signal. The risk of division mentioned the day before has become a reality, but the minority branch has been at a huge disadvantage from the beginning.

fork lacks computing power, while the non-regular

BIP110 branch progresses slowly because it retains the difficulty of Bitcoin mining but only attracts a very small number of miners. With weak computing power to counter the difficulty of calibrating the entire network, finding the next block may take hours or even longer. As a result, transactions have been pending confirmation for a long time, and the affected nodes have become difficult in daily use.

There is one nuance worth noting here. 2.53% corresponds to 51 signal blocks out of the 2,016 blocks in the 476th cycle. This ratio does not accurately measure the computing power invested in minority branches: miners can change positions, and randomness affects block output. However, it does give an order of magnitude of the contrast of forces observed before the split.

The official text of BIP 110 stipulates that there is a mandatory signaling window between blocks 961,632 and 963,647. The branch must then reach block 963,648 to enter the lock phase, and then reach block 965,664 to impose a limit on 52,416 blocks (about a year at Bitcoin's normal pace). However, the agreement's timetable is calculated in blocks rather than days. If the branch almost stagnates, the activation time originally scheduled for early September will be automatically postponed. It would be premature to call a chain "death" after eight hours. But a branch where transactions are almost impossible to confirm currently has neither the look nor practicality of the Bitcoin competitive chain.

The initial failure of BIP 110 turns the debate to node

The first conclusion is not so much about inscriptions as about the governance of Bitcoin. User-activated soft forks (UASF) allow node operators to reject blocks that are still valid for other parts of the network. This pressure will only take effect if miners, platforms, custodians and economic participants believe the chain is important enough and are willing to follow it.

BIP110 supporters cite precedents from 2017 SegWit and BIP148. But this comparison has its limitations. At the time, threats of user rejection were part of a larger balance of power. Here, the dominant chain continues to operate without significant interference, while branches with different opinions are working hard to produce their own blocks.

There is a more radical option: change the proof-of-work algorithm to open mining to other machines. This option would create a lasting hard fork that would require independent infrastructure, assets and security. This alternative shows how far the conflict over Bitcoin neutrality may go. However, to get back in place requires miners and platforms to be prepared to handle deposit, withdrawal and replay risks. There is currently no sign that they have committed to this path.

In short, BIP110 successfully created a branch but failed to give it economic weight. Two blocks, a 2.53% advance signal, and a clear lack of acceptance from the dominant chain constitute a near stagnation start. The risk analysis for BIP 110 therefore remains fully applicable: without miners and economic relays, a fork can exist in code but disappear in reality.