A disputed Bitcoin proposal finally led to a chain split over the weekend, but the breakaway branch barely moved after launch, mining only two blocks in about eight hours before stalling.
The split came from Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110, or BIP-110. Supporters say the measure would shield the network from unwanted spam and reduce the legal exposure tied to hosting non-financial data on Bitcoin. Critics, who make up most of the Bitcoin community according to the report, see it as censorship.
The split began at block 961,632
The fork was triggered Saturday at block 961,632. From that point, Bitcoin nodes running BIP-110 software began rejecting any block that did not signal support for the proposal. A block mined by AntPool without the signal was accepted by Bitcoin’s main network and rejected by BIP-110 nodes. At the same time, a miner on the Ocean pool produced the alternative block followed by the minority chain.
Within hours, the splinter chain had fallen well behind. Bitcoin’s main chain kept producing blocks at roughly one every 10 minutes, while the fork trailed by dozens of blocks.
Difficulty rules are a major obstacle
The branch is running into a problem that is hard to escape. Bitcoin only adjusts mining difficulty every 2,016 blocks, and the fork inherited the current network difficulty while controlling only a small fraction of the computing power.
Decrypt reported that about 2.53% of recent blocks signaled support for the proposal, far below the 55% threshold required to activate it without causing a split. At that pace, the fork would need about 350 days to reach its next difficulty adjustment. Bitcoin, by comparison, would reach that point in about two weeks. That leaves the minority chain facing block times measured in hours.
Why BIP-110 has split the community
As Decrypt has previously reported, BIP-110 is a soft fork proposal designed to temporarily prevent people from inserting images, text, and other non-financial data into Bitcoin transactions. Backers argue that the practice, popularized by Ordinals inscriptions, clogs the network and raises fees for ordinary payments.
Opponents argue that anyone paying for block space has the right to use it as they choose. They also say that letting miners and node operators filter transactions weakens Bitcoin’s censorship resistance. Strategy executive chairman Michael Saylor has been one of the critics, warning that turning a dispute over spam into a consensus change would set a dangerous precedent.
Saylor and Jameson Lopp react on X
Early Sunday, Saylor wrote on X: “Bitcoin worked exactly as designed. BIP-110 was free to fork, and the network was free not to follow. The result was decisive: about 99.85% of Bitcoin's hash power stayed with Bitcoin. The BIP-110 branch mined only two blocks and is already more than 80 blocks behind.”
Jameson Lopp, a long-time Bitcoin advocate and co-founder of Bitcoin security company Casa, voiced a similar view and went further. He posted on X: “I won't be ‘welcoming back’ or unblocking any BIP-110 supporters. They proved themselves to be susceptible to delusional propaganda from folks emanating reality distortion fields. In many cases they spewed vitriol and harassed the very people who have devoted their lives to supporting and improving Bitcoin.”
Replay risk remains for holders
There is another issue for anyone holding the fork’s coins. Because both chains accept identical transactions, a sale on the minority chain can be replayed on Bitcoin itself, which could hand a buyer real BTC from the same seller.
The mandatory signaling window closes at block 963,647, a level the minority chain is not expected to come close to reaching at its current pace.