Bitcoin’s BIP-110-enforcing branch had fallen 88 blocks behind the non-enforcing Bitcoin chain by Sunday, underscoring how little mining support the proposal has attracted during its mandatory signaling phase.
The enforcing branch stopped at block 961,633 after producing only two blocks, while the standard chain reached block 961,721, according to the BIP-110 monitor at 10:19 a.m. UTC. The most recent block on the enforcing branch had been mined roughly 12 hours earlier.
The divergence began after BIP-110 entered mandatory signaling at block 961,632 on Saturday. During the prior 2,016-block signaling period, only 51 blocks — 2.53% of the total — used the required version bit 4 signal.
That level of support leaves the BIP-110 branch trying to maintain an independent chain with a very small fraction of Bitcoin’s available hashpower. Since it retains Bitcoin’s existing mining difficulty until the next adjustment, miners supporting the enforcing rules face a lengthy wait before the network can lower its difficulty to match its much slower block production.
Two blocks mined through Ocean’s DATUM system
Ocean mining records showed that the first two blocks on the BIP-110 branch were produced by a pseudonymous group known as Roughnecks. The miners used Ocean’s decentralized alternative templates for universal mining, or DATUM, protocol.
DATUM allows miners to construct their own block templates rather than relying entirely on templates supplied by a mining pool. That setup gave the group a way to mine blocks carrying the BIP-110 signal even though the proposal had not attracted meaningful support from the broader mining network.
The branch’s difficulty was listed at 127.48 trillion. At the reported pace of roughly one block every 6.9 hours, completing the remainder of the current 2,016-block difficulty period would take far longer than Bitcoin’s normal two-week adjustment cycle. The chain cannot receive a lower difficulty target until that period ends, leaving its supporters with an expensive and slow route to sustaining the split.
The non-enforcing chain, meanwhile, continues to receive blocks at the usual pace because standard Bitcoin nodes accept both blocks that signal for BIP-110 and blocks that do not.
Mandatory signaling runs until block 963,647
BIP-110 requires nodes running its enforcement rules to reject blocks that fail to signal through version bit 4. The mandatory signaling window is scheduled to run through block 963,647.
Its stated purpose is to establish stricter limits on data that can be placed in Bitcoin transactions, addressing concerns that arbitrary text, images, and other non-financial data could consume block space and increase the cost of operating nodes. Developer Luke Dashjr, known online as Dashjr, has been associated with efforts to restrict such uses of Bitcoin’s transaction data fields.
Yet the stalled branch demonstrates the practical difficulty of applying a new consensus rule without broad agreement among miners, node operators, wallet providers, and other network participants. Bitcoin’s consensus system permits users to run alternative rules, but a chain with little hashpower can struggle to produce blocks reliably and may remain economically marginal if the wider ecosystem does not follow it.
Prominent Bitcoin figures question the proposal’s approach
Michael Saylor, executive chairman of Strategy, said he supported the objectives behind BIP-110 but argued that the proposal’s implementation could threaten Bitcoin’s neutral rules and established consensus process.
Adam Back, chief executive of Blockstream, also warned that a consensus-level change of this kind could damage Bitcoin’s credibility. Back said the proposal could make certain unspent transaction outputs, or UTXOs, unspendable. A UTXO is the record representing bitcoin available to be spent in a future transaction; if a rule change causes nodes to reject a transaction needed to spend one, those funds may become difficult or impossible to move on the enforcing chain.
The debate places Bitcoin’s long-running dispute over block space and transaction policy into a more disruptive setting. Arguments over inscriptions and arbitrary data have usually played out through software defaults, fee markets, relay policies, and node configuration. BIP-110 moves the issue closer to consensus enforcement, where disagreement can produce incompatible chains.
Wallet users face potential replay concerns
Users moving bitcoin while the split persists may need to consider transaction replay risk. Because both branches share the same transaction history up to the point of separation, a transaction broadcast on one branch could potentially be valid on the other if there is no effective replay protection.
That risk is more relevant to users deliberately interacting with the BIP-110 branch or attempting to distinguish coins across the two chains. Wallet providers and exchanges would need to determine whether they recognize the enforcing branch, how they handle deposits and withdrawals, and whether they apply safeguards against transactions being copied between chains.
Dashjr publicly urged node operators to update their software to avoid what he described as fake-spend attacks. The warning reflects concerns that services or users could mistake transactions on a weak or stalled chain for transactions settled on Bitcoin’s dominant chain.
The main chain’s fee market could also see short-term variation if miners, pools, and transaction services adjust their policies around the signaling dispute. The available data so far points to a more immediate outcome: BIP-110’s rules are operating on a chain with two mined blocks and a growing deficit, while the non-enforcing Bitcoin chain continues to extend without interruption.
Concerned about BIP-110’s impact on consensus and mining? Deepen your understanding of Bitcoin with our in-depth mining guide.
Disclaimer: The content on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not represent the views or financial advice of Toobit. We make no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of this information and shall not be held liable for any errors, omissions, or outcomes resulting from its use. Investing in digital assets involves risk; users should independently evaluate their financial situation and the risks involved. For further details, please consult our Terms of Service and Risk Disclosure.
