Bitcoin’s BIP-110 enforcement window failed to displace the network’s existing chain after the proposal’s supporters produced only two blocks following activation at height 961,632 on Aug. 9. The split left a small minority branch rejecting blocks containing certain non-monetary data transactions, while the main Bitcoin chain advanced by more than 200 blocks over the following day.
The result places the dispute on a different track: participants associated with the BIP-110 effort are discussing a hard fork that could replace Bitcoin’s SHA-256d proof-of-work algorithm, rather than attempting to win support from miners on the existing network.
Under Bitcoin’s longest-chain rule, nodes normally treat the valid chain with the most accumulated proof-of-work as the authoritative history. The BIP-110 branch did not gain enough mining power to compete during its 961,632–963,647 enforcement period. Support for the proposal was reported at roughly 2% of SHA-256d hashpower, well below the 55% activation threshold cited by its backers.
Two blocks followed the enforcement height
The minority chain produced blocks 961,632 and 961,633 before its progress slowed sharply. Its block interval was later estimated at about 6.9 hours, compared with Bitcoin’s intended average of roughly 10 minutes per block.
That gap reflects the economics of mining rather than a failure in Bitcoin’s normal transaction processing. The breakaway chain inherited the main chain’s mining difficulty, estimated at about 127.48 trillion, but drew only a small portion of the hashpower securing the SHA-256d network. A chain with the same difficulty target and far fewer miners will take much longer, on average, to find blocks.
Ocean, described by BIP-110 participants as the only supporting mining pool, represented about 1.6% of total Bitcoin hashpower. Participants estimated that level of support could yield only two or three blocks per day under the inherited difficulty setting.
The main chain continued operating under its existing rules and mining conditions. The software split did not alter confirmation times for transactions broadcast to the dominant Bitcoin network, whose miners continued producing blocks at the usual pace.
A proof-of-work change becomes the next option
Discussion in a Discord channel connected to Bitcoin Knots, the full-node software maintained by Luke Dashjr, has increasingly focused on changing the proof-of-work algorithm. Such a move would create a hard fork: nodes and miners would need to adopt new rules that are incompatible with Bitcoin’s existing SHA-256d chain.
Potential candidates discussed in the channel included RandomX, KT256, BLAKE3-based designs, BLAKE2 variants, Scrypt and Autolykos v2. The options span algorithms aimed more heavily at CPUs, GPUs or alternative specialized hardware.
Dashjr later suggested choosing the final algorithm through a deterministic random procedure. The stated aim was to reduce the opportunity for miners or hardware manufacturers to prepare equipment privately before the selection becomes known.
No algorithm, activation height or final hard-fork plan had been approved or activated when the discussion took place. Experimental code related to a proof-of-work transition had been moved into recent Knots code, but code inclusion alone does not create a network-wide rule change. It would require users, miners, businesses and other node operators to choose the new chain.
The hard-fork discussion marks a reversal from Dashjr’s position in June, when he said he would not pursue a proof-of-work change or hard fork. The failure to attract enough existing SHA-256d mining power appears to have pushed the debate toward building a separate network with different mining economics.
Supporters frame mining opposition as coordination
Ohm, identified as BIP-110’s author, said the move toward a hard fork followed coordination among large mining pools. Ohm characterized that outcome as a “secret hard fork” imposed through the node network.
Dashjr also described competition among large pools to mine block 961,632 as hostile behavior. His comments linked a possible algorithm change to reducing the influence of established SHA-256d mining operations.
The dispute revives a recurring Bitcoin governance question: whether changes should seek accommodation from the current mining ecosystem or deliberately create conditions that weaken its influence. A proof-of-work switch would give the minority chain a chance to reset its mining base, but it would also separate it more clearly from Bitcoin’s established hardware, security budget and economic infrastructure.
Michael Saylor wrote on X that the BIP-110 chain had about 0.15% of the hashpower of the main chain and argued that a fork can technically continue even without broad participation. Adam Back wrote that, without network consensus, economic nodes and the market had ignored the proposal while miners declined to assign meaningful hashpower to it.
Node figures show uneven participation
BIP-110 supporters cited 17,913 nodes willing to enforce the proposal from a reported total of 118,850 Bitcoin nodes, equal to 15.07%. Supporters also argued that the percentage would fall after excluding inactive or “zombie” nodes.
Node counts offer only a partial picture of a fork’s support. Publicly reachable nodes do not necessarily represent the businesses, custodians, payment firms and users that determine which chain receives real-world usage. Mining participation has been even more decisive in this case because the breakaway branch retained Bitcoin’s high difficulty while failing to retain comparable hashpower.
The conflict has also spilled into Bitcoin’s developer community. Developer Erhardt called for the removal of a key developer from an editing role, arguing that protocol authority had been misused. The dispute adds a governance dimension to a split already shaped by competing views on censorship resistance, transaction policy and the limits of miner influence.
For now, BIP-110 exists as a thinly mined alternative chain rather than a rival history capable of overtaking Bitcoin’s main network. Its supporters can continue developing a separate hard-fork proposal, but any such chain would need to establish its own mining security, node base and economic support instead of inheriting them from the dominant SHA-256d network.
Curious how proof-of-work shapes Bitcoin’s future? Explore what is proof-of-work and how does it work in our detailed 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.
