The controversial BIP-110 fork has effectively failed after producing just two blocks since its launch at block 961,632, while Bitcoin has climbed to block 961,963, leaving the breakaway chain 326 blocks behind the dominant network. According to CoinDesk, the forked chain cannot lower its mining difficulty until it reaches 2,016 blocks, a milestone now estimated to be more than six years away, though some observers caution it is too early to declare the effort a failure. Michael Saylor has intensified his criticism of BIP-110, claiming that the controversial fork couldn't gain enough significance as about 99.85% of Bitcoin's hashpower stayed with Bitcoin. The BTC-holding company founder noted that supporters would need to mine about 2,015 more blocks at the current rate before they experience their first difficulty adjustment, which could take about 25 years. Saylor emphasized that 'anyone can fork or copy the code of Bitcoin, but they cannot make the Bitcoin ecosystem accept their version as the real thing', demonstrating that Bitcoin's decentralized governance functions as intended through market consensus rather than centralized control.
The controversial BIP-110 fork has collapsed after Roughnecks, the mining group behind the chain's only two blocks, abandoned the effort on August 9, with the breakaway chain now effectively defunct. According to BeInCrypto, the free-market story continues as supporters exercised their right to form their own blockchain, forking from the original Bitcoin at block 961,632 in an attempt to implement their preferred rules. Michael Saylor, founder of BTC-holding company Strategy (MSTR), noted on X that 'Bitcoin worked exactly as designed' as miners quickly chose the more profitable version, the original Bitcoin. The new chain, which inherited Bitcoin's massive mining difficulty, attracted only a tiny fraction of hashpower and produced just two blocks before grinding to a halt, while the original Bitcoin network continued uninterrupted, retaining virtually all activity, liquidity and security. Bitcoin now leads by more than 240 blocks, with the BIP-110 chain frozen at block 961,633 and signaling at 0.00%. As reported by crypto.news, Bitcoin blocks keep arriving on schedule with the last six blocks averaging under 10 minutes apart, demonstrating the network's continued stability.
Bitcoin Core developer and BIP Editor Mark "Murch" Erhardt formally called for Luke Dashjr removal from the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) editorial team on August 9, escalating a dispute over Dashjr's handling of BIP110 and the proposal's recent chain split. The motion, posted to the Bitcoin Development Mailing List and backed by GitHub pull request 2248, remains open as of August 10, with Dashjr still appearing among six editors listed in the governing BIP3 document. Murch alleges Dashjr exercised his editorial authority inconsistently while closely involved in advancing BIP110, citing an attempt to assign BIP110 a formal number publicly before mailing list discussion concluded, and a merge of a related pull request completed within minutes of it opening. Since his reply will likely be censored, Dashjr rejected the allegations within an hour, writing 'These are false accusations. I have followed the BIP process consistently for years. Your novice opinions alone do not establish new processes.' The community response has been divided, with Bitcoin developer Matt Corallo supporting removing Dashjr, and fellow BIP Editor Olaoluwa Osuntokun formally seconding Murch's motion. Jameson Lopp noted there is no formal governance structure covering how BIP Editors are managed, while Antoine Riard suggested Dashjr step aside temporarily but argued contributors should first allow a public response and establish clearer removal procedures.
Following his removal from the BIP editorial team, Luke Dashjr has announced he is taking a sabbatical from his role as chair and chief technology officer of mining pool Ocean. As reported by CoinDesk, Dashjr described his removal as 'an abuse of power' in a post on X, having previously called the accusations 'false' when the motion was first put forward. 'The latter is particularly notable given that Luke has otherwise made hardly any contributions to the day-to-day work of the BIP Editors since the additional editors began serving in April 2024: he left fewer than 1% of the BIP Editor comments in the repository since then, and the merge action of this PR was his first since May 2024,' Bitcoin developer Mark Erhardt wrote in his removal motion. Dashjr stated that he is 'taking a sabbatical from his role as chair and chief technology officer of mining pool Ocean to turn his immediate focus to working Bitcoin and open-source projects to support Bitcoin.' This development comes as the BIP-110 proposal, which aimed to restrict non-financial data storage on Bitcoin, never gained momentum, acquiring support from only around 2.6% of miners, a long way shy of the 55% required threshold to succeed.
Following the fork's collapse, BIP-110 backers are now targeting September 1 for a complete breakaway from Bitcoin, abandoning their original soft fork proposal entirely. As reported by BeInCrypto, Luke Dashjr, the Bitcoin Knots maintainer and OCEAN pool co-founder, suggested this timeline when asked about the next move, coinciding with the day BIP-110 would have activated. The proposed change would involve a proof-of-work modification that would swap the puzzle securing the chain, making every existing Bitcoin mining machine useless overnight and creating a rival coin living or dying on its own. This represents a dramatic escalation from the original soft fork proposal, turning a failed rule change into a complete breakaway movement. Backers will pick a new proof-of-work algorithm on August 11 at 14:00 UTC through a deterministic draw in their Discord, with such a switch stripping today's Bitcoin miners of any role on a breakaway chain. Adam Back has already dismissed the campaign as unserious, and the next three weeks will show whether the September plan draws more hashpower than the last attempt did. History offers a warning here - Bitcoin Cash broke away in 2017 with far more support and kept Bitcoin's mining algorithm, today trading near $215, about 0.3% of Bitcoin's price.
The weekend split has highlighted the independence of individual miners even within mining pools, as demonstrated by Simple Mining's decision to reject BIP-110 despite using Ocean's DATUM protocol. As reported by crypto.news, Simple Mining produced block 961,634 on the main chain, two blocks past the point where BIP-110 supporters broke away, stating 'Hashrate is a vote you cannot fake, and we decided the proposal wasn't worth following.' This choice is notable because Ocean, the pool it mines with, had switched miners to signal for BIP-110 by default in July and accounted for nearly all of the proposal's small amount of mining support before the split. Simple Mining used Ocean's DATUM protocol, which gives individual miners control over the blocks they produce, allowing operators to build their own blocks using their own bitcoin software while still contributing computing power to the pool and sharing in payouts. This explains why Ocean appeared on both sides of the split, with a miner using Ocean's DATUM protocol producing the first block accepted by the BIP-110 branch on Saturday, while Simple Mining made the opposite choice. However, OCEAN's reported hashrate has since collapsed 96% following the fork, with angry miners now demanding leadership changes over the breach. David Schwartz, former Ripple CTO, accused Bitcoin Knots of misleading readers who lack the technical context to check claims, with the account never naming alleged attackers but recasting the lopsided miner vote as sabotage by large pools.
Bitcoin holders face significant risks from potential replay attacks during the BIP-110 fork, with developers warning that selling fork coins could result in losing real Bitcoin. As reported by crypto.news, Bitcoin developer Kevin Loaec warned users that attempting to sell coins on the minority fork without first separating balances could expose corresponding BTC on the dominant chain. The replay attack mechanism works because both chains initially accept identical transactions, meaning a transaction signed to send fork coins can also be broadcast on Bitcoin itself. This creates a situation where buyers receive the same amount in actual Bitcoin at the same destination while the seller loses their real Bitcoin. Loaec advises that doing nothing will be the safest option for non-experts, as coins that never move cannot be replayed because there is no signed transaction to copy. The safest course for holders is to avoid moving coins during the potential split until the chains can be separated.
