BIP 110, a temporary soft fork designed to limit non-financial data recorded on Bitcoin, indeed caused a split at block 961,632. But its branch produced only two blocks in eight hours. The ne
BIP 110, a temporary soft fork designed to limit non-financial data recorded on Bitcoin, indeed caused a split at block 961,632. But its branch produced only two blocks in eight hours. The network has just reminded us that a rule without miners remains mostly an intention.
Since block 961,632, Bitcoin has been running on two parallel chains. The first gathers the vast majority of miners, exchanges, and users; the second groups nodes compatible with BIP-110, who reject any block lacking the activation signal required by the proposal. This division materializes the decisive phase of BIP 110 announced in recent days.
Your 1st cryptos with BitpandaThis link uses an affiliate program.The point of rupture is simple. At height 961,632, AntPool produced a block without the signal required by BIP-110. Ordinary nodes accepted it, but nodes that had activated the proposal rejected it: from that moment, the two groups no longer viewed the same chain.
Roughnecks, via the OCEAN pool, then found a block conforming to the bit 4 signal. This block gave BIP-110 supporters a distinct branch on which to continue. The fork was born, but with very little computing power to push it forward.
According to the SpazioCrypto article published on August 9, 2026 at 09:08 UTC, this branch had produced only two blocks during its first eight hours, compared to 48 on the dominant chain. The gap thus does not describe two networks of comparable strength: Bitcoin continued to operate normally on one side, while confirmations became rare on the BIP-110 branch.
At 11:40 UTC, the public BIP 110 monitor placed the main chain at block 961,725, i.e., 94 blocks followed since the start of period 477. None of these blocks signaled BIP-110. The risk of split mentioned the day before by Cointribune had become real, but the minority branch was starting with a considerable handicap.
The BIP-110 branch advances slowly because it retains Bitcoin’s mining difficulty while attracting a tiny fraction of miners. With little computing power against a difficulty calibrated for the entire network, finding the next block can take hours or more. Transactions then remain pending, and affected nodes become difficult to use daily.
A nuance matters here. The 2.53% corresponds to 51 signaling blocks out of 2,016 blocks in period 476. This rate does not precisely measure the computing power engaged on the minority branch: a miner can change position, and randomness affects block production. Nevertheless, it gives the order of magnitude of the balance of power observed before the split.
The official BIP 110 text provides for a mandatory signaling window between blocks 961,632 and 963,647. The branch must then reach block 963,648 to enter locking, then block 965,664 to apply restrictions for 52,416 blocks, about one year at Bitcoin’s normal pace.
However, the protocol’s schedule is counted in blocks, not days. If the branch remains almost stationary, the activation announced for early September moves further away mechanically. To call a chain “dead” after eight hours would be excessive. However, a chain that confirms almost no transactions currently has neither the appearance nor the utility of a competing Bitcoin.
The first verdict is less about inscriptions than about Bitcoin governance. A UASF, or user-activated soft fork, allows node operators to reject blocks that are still valid for the rest of the network. This pressure only works if miners, platforms, custodians, and economic actors consider this chain important enough to follow.
BIP-110 supporters cited the precedent of SegWit and BIP-148 in 2017. The comparison has its limits. At that time, the threat of rejection by users was part of a much larger balance of power. Here, the dominant chain continues without visible disruption, while the dissenting branch struggles to produce its own blocks.
There remains a more radical option: change the proof-of-work algorithm to open mining to other machines. This choice would create a lasting hard fork, with separate infrastructure, assets, and security. This backup plan shows how far the conflict over Bitcoin’s neutrality can go.
However, a recovery would require miners and platforms ready to manage deposits, withdrawals, and replay risks. Nothing indicates at this stage that they are committed to this path.
In short, BIP-110 succeeded in creating a branch, but not in giving it economic weight. Two blocks, 2.53% prior signaling, and no visible adhesion from the dominant chain compose an almost stationary start. Our risk analysis of BIP 110 therefore remains fully relevant: without miners or economic relays, a fork can exist in code and disappear in reality.
