Bitcoin reached block height 961,632 in the early hours of Aug. 9 Beijing time, triggering BIP-110’s mandatory signaling phase and a split between nodes enforcing the proposal and the main chain. The result was brief. The BIP-110 branch produced only two blocks before stalling, while Bitcoin’s main network continued operating normally. In the previous difficulty period, the proposal had received support signals from just 51 blocks, or 2.53%, far below its self-defined 55% threshold for voluntary early lock-in. BIP-110, submitted by pseudonymous developer Dathon Ohm with early draft input from Luke Dashjr, aimed to impose temporary consensus-level limits that would raise the cost of writing large amounts of continuous data to Bitcoin, including Ordinals-style inscriptions. Supporters argued that full nodes bear the burden of downloading, validating, and in some cases storing this data, while critics said changing consensus rules to target an unpopular but fee-paying use of Bitcoin would create a dangerous precedent. The fork’s failure has not ended the dispute. Debate continues over on-chain data, protocol neutrality, user-activated soft forks, miner support, and Bitcoin’s development process. For ordinary holders, the short-term concern is replay risk: because the minority chain lacks built-in replay protection, developers and Ledger have warned that moving or selling forked coins could also move corresponding BTC on the main chain if users are not careful.

PANews reported that Bitcoin Improvement Proposal BIP-110 entered its mandatory signaling phase on August 9 but quickly ran into a wall. The minority chain tied to the proposal produced only two blocks in roughly eight hours, both mined by Roughnecks, after signaling support fell far short of the activation threshold. In the last difficulty period before activation, only 51 blocks signaled support, or about 2.53% of the 2,016-block window. Roughnecks and later PyBLOCK then paused support, while developer Luke Dashjr drew public criticism over the dispute.

Bitcoin saw another chain split on Aug. 9 after nodes backing BIP-110 began rejecting blocks that did not carry support signals at height 961,632. At the time of the update, Bitcoin’s main chain had advanced to block 961,651, while the BIP-110 fork chain had only reached 961,633, leaving it 18 blocks behind. BIP-110 is a one-year rule change proposal aimed at limiting non-financial data written into Bitcoin transactions, including uses such as Ordinals inscriptions. Under the proposal, activation requires at least 1,109 signaling blocks, or 55%, within a 2,016-block period of roughly two weeks. In the prior signaling window, however, only 51 blocks supported the proposal, equal to 2.53%. The fork chain still needs more miner backing to keep moving forward. Under the stated rules, it would need to reach block 963,648 to lock in the change, and the restrictions would begin at block 965,664 for about one year. BlockBeats also cited an earlier warning from Bitcoin developer Kevin Loaec, who said holders selling fork-chain tokens this weekend could face a risk that real BTC might be transferred away.

Bitcoin developer Kevin Loaec warned on Aug. 8 that if a Bitcoin fork tied to the disputed BIP-110 proposal emerges this weekend, holders trying to sell coins on the forked chain could accidentally lose real BTC on the original network. The risk comes from the lack of replay protection in the early stage of a chain split, which could allow a transaction signed on one chain to be copied and executed on the other. According to the report, if Bitcoin splits into two chains, users may initially hold matching BTC balances on both. That may tempt some traders to sell what looks like “free” fork coins. But without proper separation of assets, the signed transaction used to move those fork coins could also be valid on the main Bitcoin chain, letting the buyer receive the same amount of real BTC. Loaec said the safest option for holders who do not know how to securely split assets across both chains is to do nothing for now. He added that untouched BTC is not exposed to replay attacks because no signed transaction exists to copy. BIP-110 currently has about 2.6% miner signaling support, far below the level needed for activation, leaving uncertainty over whether a fork will actually take shape.

Bitcoin developer Kevin Loaec has issued a warning about a possible bitcoin fork connected to the controversial proposal BIP-110. If the fork happens this weekend, holders who sell the resulting forked-chain tokens may face the risk of having their real BTC stolen. The proposed fork could lead to duplicate balances existing on both chains. This might tempt holders to sell what appear to be free forked coins. However, during the initial phase, both chains accept the same set of transactions. As a result, selling forked coins could trigger a replay attack, where the seller's genuine bitcoin on the main chain is spent at the same time. The developer stated that there is no built-in replay protection, at least until early September. Therefore, non-professional users should avoid moving bitcoin during the potential fork. This warning highlights the danger of interacting with forked assets without proper safeguards.

Coinkite has confirmed a seed-generation flaw affecting parts of the Coldcard hardware-wallet line, after on-chain analysts tracked the theft of 594.48 BTC in a burst of transactions completed within roughly 25 minutes. The incident involved 1,324 UTXOs swept through 500 transactions across a three-block window, with the funds taken from about 500 single-signature addresses. Security researchers said the issue traces back to firmware changes introduced in March 2021 that accidentally disabled the secure chip’s hardware random-number generator, leaving key generation to rely on predictable inputs such as a chip serial number and clock registers. Coinkite first focused its warning on the Mk3, then later expanded the affected scope to include older firmware on the Mk4, Mk5 and Q. The company said users should not wait for a firmware update and should move funds by creating a new seed on an unaffected device, verifying backups, testing with a small transaction and then transferring the full balance. Devices including TAPSIGNER, OPENDIME and SATSCARD were said to be outside the affected codebase.

Coinkite, the Canadian hardware wallet maker behind Coldcard, issued a security warning on July 31 urging users of the Coldcard Mk3 to move funds if their seed phrases were generated on firmware versions 4.0.1 through 5.0.3. The company said its preliminary analysis suggests wallets protected with a BIP-39 passphrase face lower risk, while Mk4, Q and Mk5 devices are not affected. At the same time, security researchers are examining an unusual transfer involving 594.48 BTC, worth about $38.3 million. AnchorWatch CEO Rob Hamilton said the attacker moved 1,324 UTXOs through 500 transactions within three blocks and suggested the issue may stem from insufficient randomness during wallet generation. Wizardsardine CEO Kevin Loaec said the flaw could be tied to a software library, a secure chip, or a low-entropy random number generator linked to a specific device batch or firmware version. He also said AI-generated scripts may have been used to brute-force affected wallets. No conclusive evidence has yet linked the transfer directly to a Coldcard Mk3 flaw.