BIP-110 Mines Only Two Blocks: The Battle Over Bitcoin Rules Ultimately Comes Down to Hash Power

CoinWorld reported:

On August 8, when Bitcoin reached block height 961632, the network briefly experienced two versions.

Antpool continued to mine blocks according to the original rules. On the other side, the Roughnecks mining pool mined blocks supporting BIP-110 and then mined another one. However, this new chain slowed down.

The main chain quickly advanced, while the BIP-110 branch remained stagnant. Both sides used the same mining difficulty, and the branch only had a small portion of the hash power. On average, miners across the network could find a new block every ten minutes, but with fewer mining machines, the same problem could take several hours to solve.

This months-long debate ultimately distilled into a simple set of numbers: two blocks and an ever-widening height difference.

BIP-110 aimed to address the contents in Bitcoin blocks that were "not like transactions." Protocols like Ordinals and Runes embed images, text, and token data into transactions. Supporters believe that these contents occupy node storage and block space, and Bitcoin should refocus on currency; opponents counter directly: transactions are legitimate, fees are paid, so developers have no right to judge which uses are noble and which are garbage.

It does not permanently ban all data uses. The proposal is designed as a temporary soft fork, with rules set to expire automatically after about a year unless the community decides to extend it again. Supporters hope to change incentives during this year to prevent large data volumes from becoming the default use; critics worry that temporary restrictions could set a dangerous precedent: as soon as a certain type of transaction becomes unpopular, someone might try to elevate it to a consensus ban.

The proposal chose a hardline approach. It first allowed miners to signal support in blocks, and if voluntary support was insufficient, it would enter a mandatory signaling phase. Nodes running BIP-110 rules would reject blocks that did not meet the requirements. If most miners did not follow suit, the two sets of nodes would see separate "valid chains."

The voluntary lock-in threshold was set at 55% within a 2016 block cycle, meaning at least 1109 blocks needed to signal support. This ratio is lower than the high thresholds used in some past Bitcoin soft forks because BIP-110's rules would automatically expire. The problem is that mandatory signaling cannot turn opponents into supporters; it can only force both sides to make a choice at the same height.

961632 was that dangerous crossroads.

Code can dictate which blocks are valid, but it cannot conjure hash power out of thin air. The BIP-110 branch inherited the mainnet's difficulty, but the supporting mining machines were too few, causing the block production speed to drop rapidly. Exchanges, wallets, and users faced with two chains also found it difficult to leave the side with higher accumulated work and stronger liquidity.

Difficulty adjustments further put the weaker branch in a more awkward position. Bitcoin typically adjusts mining difficulty every 2016 blocks. After a sudden significant drop in hash power, the new chain must first struggle to mine a complete cycle before it has a chance to lower the difficulty to match its own hash power level. Without enough miners willing to accompany it through this phase, the chain would stagnate for a long time.

Ultimately, Bitcoin governance does not take place in a conference room.

BIP documents are not board resolutions, and code merges do not equate to network-wide execution. Developers can write rules, nodes can choose software, miners can allocate hash power, exchanges can decide which chain to recognize, and holders ultimately express their stance through funds and trading behavior. This relationship is usually quite ambiguous; only when a fork approaches does the power in everyone's hands become apparent.

After the fork's setback, Luke Dashjr was removed from the BIP editor list. Given his long-standing support for BIP-110, this change could easily be interpreted as a political purge.

The controversy surrounding him is not solely due to this proposal. Some developers worry that mixing the proposal maintenance role with strong personal stances could undermine process neutrality; supporters argue that the replacement action itself carries factional undertones. Bitcoin lacks a formal personnel arbitration body, so such conflicts must ultimately be resolved through public discussion, repository permissions, and whether participants continue to collaborate.

The actual boundaries are much narrower. BIP editors are responsible for maintaining proposal processes, formats, and documents, but they are not responsible for approving upgrades for Bitcoin. Editing permissions can affect community trust, but they cannot delete already public code or command mining pools to switch sides. Viewing this as "BIP-110 being officially revoked" misinterprets the fact that Bitcoin has no official authority.

The halt after two blocks does not mean the debate is over. Should block space only accommodate financial transactions, or should it be open to whoever pays? Should nodes permanently store arbitrary data? Should client default strategies carry value judgments?—these questions remain. BIP-110 may exit the stage, but the contradictions will return in another form.

There is no need to rush to social media to find a winner. Just observe whether that branch continues to produce blocks, whether mining pools change their signals, how trading platforms calculate confirmations, and whether mainstream clients adjust default strategies; that will suffice.

Bitcoin rarely makes declarative statements. It leaves opinions in software versions, hash power, and the longest chain.

This content is provided for general informational purposes only and doesn't constitute financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Any events, rewards, online promotions, or related information mentioned herein should not be considered a recommendation, solicitation, or invitation to purchase, sell, trade, or otherwise deal in any crypto assets. Crypto assets are highly volatile and may result in loss. The availability of WEEX services, products, and related events may vary by region. You are responsible for ensuring that your participation is in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations.