A short-lived Bitcoin network split linked to BIP-110 has stalled after attracting only a small share of the network’s mining power, offering a practical demonstration of how difficult it is to establish a rival version of Bitcoin under today’s conditions. Giacomo Zucco, the Bitcoin researcher and longtime industry commentator, said in an Aug. 12 interview that the breakaway chain initially produced two blocks, paused, and had reached only four blocks by the time he spoke.
BIP-110 was backed by Bitcoin developer Luke Dashjr and sought to alter Bitcoin’s consensus rules to restrict data that supporters considered spam. The proposal became entangled with a larger argument over transaction filtering, software governance, and the respective power of node operators, miners, and developers.
The split occurred at Bitcoin block 961,632 on Aug. 8, according to the account of the fork provided in the source material. The main Bitcoin chain retained roughly 99.85% of mining power, while the BIP-110 chain briefly reached a reported peak of 2.53% support among network operators during its activation period.
That imbalance left the alternative chain with limited capacity to produce blocks consistently. A blockchain with little hash power can remain technically operational, but its security against chain reorganizations and other attacks is much weaker than that of the dominant chain. In this case, block production stopped almost immediately before restarting at a slow pace.
A proposal over spam became a governance fight
Dashjr and BIP-110 supporters argued that Bitcoin needed tighter limits on certain forms of arbitrary data embedded in transactions. The debate centered on the use of Bitcoin transaction fields for data storage, an issue that has repeatedly divided parts of the Bitcoin community as inscriptions and other on-chain data techniques have grown more common.
Critics of the proposal saw it as an attempt to impose a contentious policy preference through consensus rules. Bitcoin’s consensus layer determines whether transactions and blocks are valid, making changes especially sensitive: nodes that adopt new rules can split from nodes that do not.
Zucco described BIP-110 as more than a disagreement about spam. In his account, the dispute combined competing views of Bitcoin development, the authority of BIP editors, and whether miners or node operators should carry greater influence in enforcing contested network rules.
He said arguments that the proposal was urgently needed to prevent potentially illegal material from being encoded on Bitcoin intensified the conflict. Such claims placed a technical dispute over block policy alongside legal and reputational concerns, encouraging supporters to frame restrictive measures as necessary rather than optional.
The result was a fork that tested whether that urgency translated into durable network support. The early outcome suggests that a rule change can be implemented by a determined minority, yet still struggle to become an economically or technically viable alternative when miners, users, and infrastructure providers continue following the existing chain.
Dashjr sought a different mining algorithm
Zucco said Dashjr continued working to keep the fork operating after its weak start, including efforts to replace its proof-of-work algorithm. Proof of work is the computational process miners use to compete for the right to add blocks; changing it can prevent existing Bitcoin mining hardware from mining the new chain.
According to Zucco, Dashjr proposed selecting a replacement algorithm randomly from several candidates. The selection would have depended on the final character of the next Testnet4 block hash, a value generated through mining activity on Bitcoin’s public test network.
The plan ran into trouble when participants produced additional Testnet blocks in what Zucco described as an effort to influence the outcome. The proposed selection process was then halted and restarted.
A change to BLAKE2b, as described in the source material, would sever the fork’s direct connection to standard Bitcoin mining hardware. That may give the breakaway chain a way to seek security from a different pool of miners, but it also removes one of the few remaining links between the two networks. The fork would need to attract miners willing to deploy separate equipment or software for a chain with limited established use.
The episode also exposes a practical difficulty for minority Bitcoin forks. A fork can declare new rules, but it must also solve for mining security, wallet support, price discovery, software maintenance, and user confidence. Those requirements become more demanding when the new chain deliberately abandons the proof-of-work system securing the original network.
Replay risk complicates any chain split
The reported split also raises operational concerns for holders who control coins on both chains. The source material says the fork lacks replay protection, a mechanism designed to prevent a valid transaction on one chain from being copied and accepted on the other.
Without replay protection, a person sending coins on one chain could potentially authorize an equivalent transfer on the other chain. That risk is most relevant to users who move funds during the split and to traders considering services that offer separate tokens representing the two networks.
Users handling coins affected by a fork generally need to be cautious about wallet software, transaction tools, and services promising to split balances automatically. Importing private keys into unfamiliar software can expose funds, while transactions made without chain-specific safeguards can create unintended consequences across both networks.
The main Bitcoin network, meanwhile, continued operating with reported hash rate near 923 exahashes per second, according to the supplied network data. That level of computing power, combined with the reported 99.85% share held by the original chain during the split, leaves the BIP-110 fork facing a far more immediate challenge than changing Bitcoin’s data rules: sustaining a functioning and secure network of its own.
Curious how such failed forks affect Bitcoin’s value? Explore our guide: Does Bitcoin Have Value today.
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.
