Bitcoin BIP-110 Soft Fork Stalls With Low Miner Support: What Happens Next?
2026/08/10 15:06:00
Bitcoin’s controversial BIP-110 experiment has reached its first real-world test, and the early result has been strikingly one-sided. The proposal entered its mandatory signaling period at block 961,632 on August 8, after only 51 of the previous 2,016 blocks signaled support — roughly 2.53%, far below the 55% threshold that could have secured an earlier lock-in. Nodes enforcing BIP-110 then rejected blocks that failed to signal bit 4, while the dominant Bitcoin network continued accepting and mining them.
The result was a minority branch that managed to produce only two blocks, 961,632 and 961,633, before effectively stalling. By the latest reported August 9 snapshot, the dominant Bitcoin chain had already advanced to block 961,744, leaving the BIP-110 branch 111 blocks behind, while none of the first 113 blocks in the new main-chain difficulty period had signaled support.
That raises a larger question than whether a small fork can keep producing blocks: Has BIP-110 already failed, or has it opened a longer battle over Bitcoin blockspace, miner power and network governance?
What Happened to BIP-110?
BIP-110, formally titled the Reduced Data Temporary Softfork, was designed with an unusual activation mechanism. Miners could initially signal support using version bit 4, with an early lock-in threshold of 1,109 out of 2,016 blocks, or 55%. When that threshold was not reached, however, the proposal did not simply expire. Instead, its mandatory signaling window began at block 961,632. During this period, BIP-110-enforcing nodes reject blocks that do not signal the proposal.
That distinction matters because block 961,632 was not the point at which BIP-110’s full reduced-data transaction rules became active. It was the beginning of mandatory signaling. According to the specification, that window runs through block 963,647 on the BIP-110 chain, with lock-in scheduled no later than 963,648 and the actual new consensus restrictions planned to become ACTIVE at 965,664.
What occurred on August 8 was therefore a disagreement over which blocks enforcing nodes would accept. The dominant Bitcoin chain accepted the first non-signaling block, while BIP-110 nodes rejected it and followed an alternative signaling block. A second BIP-110 block was subsequently found, but the branch then slowed dramatically.
| BIP-110 Milestone | What Happened |
| Voluntary signaling | Miners could signal bit 4 for early lock-in |
| Previous 2,016 blocks | Only 51 blocks signaled, or 2.53% |
| Block 961,632 | Mandatory signaling began |
| BIP-110 branch | Blocks 961,632 and 961,633 were produced |
| Latest reported status | Branch remained stalled while the dominant chain continued advancing |
| Full BIP-110 rules | Scheduled for activation later, at block 965,664 on a chain that follows the deployment state machine |
The split demonstrates a basic reality of Bitcoin governance: software can define which blocks a node considers valid, but a rule set still needs enough miners and economic participants behind it to sustain a functioning network.
Why Was BIP-110 Proposed in the First Place?
The argument behind BIP-110 predates this weekend’s fork. Its supporters object to the growing use of Bitcoin transactions for embedding arbitrary non-financial data, a controversy that intensified after Ordinals and inscriptions popularized putting images, text and other information into Bitcoin transactions. The BIP’s own motivation describes this activity as a burden on node operators and argues that Bitcoin should remain focused primarily on functioning as permissionless money.
The economic argument is more nuanced than simply saying that data makes blocks larger. A miner that includes a data-heavy transaction receives the transaction fee once. Full nodes, however, may continue downloading, verifying, storing and serving that blockchain data indefinitely. BIP-110 supporters therefore argue that there is a mismatch between who receives the fee and who bears the long-term infrastructure cost. The proposal explicitly cites this difference between the market for payments and the market for permanent data storage.
Opponents approach the same problem from the opposite direction. If a transaction satisfies Bitcoin’s existing consensus rules, pays the market fee and is voluntarily included by a miner, they argue that the network should not distinguish between a “good” and “bad” use of blockspace. Critics such as Jameson Lopp have warned that moving subjective judgments about unwanted data into consensus rules could create chain-split risk and constrain future Bitcoin functionality.
That is why BIP-110 has become much more than an Ordinals dispute. It asks a fundamental question: Is Bitcoin blockspace an open market for anyone willing to pay, or should the protocol itself establish boundaries around what the blockchain is meant to be used for?
What Does BIP-110 Actually Change?
If BIP-110 eventually reaches its ACTIVE state on an enforcing chain, it would add seven temporary consensus restrictions aimed primarily at making large arbitrary data embedding more difficult. Among the clearest limits are a 34-byte maximum for most new output scriptPubKeys, an 83-byte limit for OP_RETURN outputs and a 256-byte ceiling on specified data pushes and witness elements. It also temporarily restricts undefined witness versions, Taproot annexes, oversized Taproot control blocks and certain Tapscript behavior.
The proposal also includes UTXO grandfathering. Inputs spending UTXOs created before activation are exempt from the new rules, meaning the restrictions are designed to apply to new post-activation outputs rather than retroactively changing the spending rules for ordinary existing coins. The specification says the deployment would last for 52,416 blocks — approximately one year at Bitcoin’s intended block interval — before the added restrictions automatically expire.
| BIP-110 Rule | Practical Purpose |
| 34-byte limit for most new scriptPubKeys | Restricts unusually large output scripts |
| OP_RETURN capped at 83 bytes | Reintroduces a tight consensus-level data limit |
| 256-byte data push limit | Makes large contiguous data payloads harder |
| Defined witness versions only | Temporarily closes unused upgrade paths as data channels |
| Taproot annex restricted | Prevents use of the annex for unrestricted arbitrary data |
| Control block limit | Caps unusually large Taproot structures |
| Temporary deployment | Restrictions expire after roughly one year if no further change replaces them |
BIP-110 should therefore not be described as a Bitcoin scaling upgrade. It does not raise block capacity, shorten Bitcoin’s target block interval or directly increase transaction throughput. Nor does it modify Bitcoin’s issuance schedule or monetary supply. Its purpose is narrower: to change which forms of transaction data are considered valid at the consensus level for a temporary period. The BIP itself also acknowledges that it cannot eliminate arbitrary data completely; users could still disguise or split data in other ways.
Why Did the BIP-110 Fork Stall So Quickly?
The immediate problem is not complicated: hashpower.
Bitcoin adjusts mining difficulty every 2,016 blocks so that, over time, blocks continue arriving at roughly ten-minute intervals. When the BIP-110 branch separated from the dominant chain, it inherited Bitcoin’s existing mining difficulty but only a tiny fraction of the mining power. That meant miners on the minority branch were attempting to solve blocks calibrated for the much larger Bitcoin mining network.
This creates an especially difficult situation for a small breakaway chain. Its low hashpower produces slow blocks, yet difficulty cannot normally fall until the branch completes its current 2,016-block difficulty period. Slow blocks therefore delay the very adjustment that could make future blocks easier to find. CoinDesk reported shortly after the split that the minority branch’s block production had already slowed to hours rather than Bitcoin’s normal approximate ten-minute rhythm.
The August 9 data made the imbalance clearer. The BIP-110 branch remained at 961,633 while the dominant chain reached 961,744. The reported monitor also showed zero BIP-110 signals among the first 113 main-chain blocks produced after mandatory signaling began. The branch had not technically disappeared — miners remained free to direct additional hashpower toward it — but there was no evidence in that snapshot of enough new mining power arriving to restore normal block production.
This turns the BIP-110 episode into a live demonstration of Bitcoin’s proof-of-work economics. A node can refuse to accept blocks under rules it opposes, but rejection alone does not produce blocks. A competing rule set needs miners willing to spend substantial energy extending the chain, and the first days of BIP-110 mandatory signaling show how severe the consequences can be when that support is absent.
Spam Control or Censorship? The Real Bitcoin Debate
Supporters of BIP-110 frame the proposal as a defense of Bitcoin’s monetary purpose. From this perspective, Bitcoin’s most important roles are censorship-resistant settlement, permissionless payments and sound money. Turning scarce blockspace into permanent storage for images, files or unrelated data forces every validating node to participate in a use case that many node operators never agreed to support. The BIP argues that data storage can also compete with payments for blockspace, potentially increasing the cost of using Bitcoin as money.
Critics see a more dangerous precedent. Bitcoin has historically derived much of its credibility from predictable rules: valid transactions remain valid regardless of whether other users approve of their purpose. From that perspective, a user who pays the required fee has purchased scarce blockspace through an open market. Once protocol rules begin deciding that one technically valid use is undesirable, opponents worry that future groups could apply similar reasoning to other controversial forms of activity. Lopp, for example, argues that BIP-110 risks weakening Bitcoin’s neutrality while also constraining advanced Taproot-based experimentation.
The disagreement is complicated by the fact that BIP-110 itself concedes that consensus rules cannot eliminate “spam” completely and says policy or transaction filters are normally the preferred place to fight it. The proponents’ case is instead that policy cannot guarantee protection when a miner deliberately chooses to include the targeted transactions, which is why they want a temporary consensus-level backstop.
So the dispute is not really about whether 256 bytes is the correct number. It is about governance. Developers can write proposals, miners can allocate hashpower, node operators can reject blocks, wallets and exchanges can choose which chain to support, and users can assign economic value. BIP-110 is testing how those groups interact when there is no broad agreement on what Bitcoin should permit.
Is BIP-110 Already Dead?
Economically, BIP-110 is in serious trouble. Technically, declaring it completely dead would be premature.
The branch still exists as long as its valid blocks and chain state exist, and a miner could attempt to extend it at any time. The problem is that a technically valid blockchain branch is not automatically an economically relevant cryptocurrency. The latest reported evidence showed overwhelming mining activity continuing on the dominant Bitcoin chain while the enforcing branch remained frozen after two blocks.
For a rival Bitcoin chain to become economically meaningful, it needs much more than software rules. It needs enough hashpower to produce blocks reliably, infrastructure capable of supporting transactions, users willing to hold and transact on it, wallets and custodians capable of distinguishing between chains, and eventually some form of liquid market if the two assets are treated separately. The current BIP-110 branch has not demonstrated that level of ecosystem adoption.
The comparison with famous Bitcoin forks can therefore be misleading. A visible chain split does not automatically mean the market has created another Bitcoin Cash-style asset. What exists today is better understood as a minority branch generated by incompatible block-acceptance rules during the mandatory signaling phase. Whether that branch ever develops meaningful economic weight depends largely on whether substantial mining and user support arrives.
The key distinction is technical existence versus economic relevance. BIP-110 can remain technically alive while becoming practically irrelevant. Based on the mining activity reported through August 9, that second outcome currently appears much closer to what the market is signaling — although Bitcoin’s decentralized structure means that participants remain free to change their behavior.
What Does This Mean for BTC Holders?
For ordinary BTC holders, BIP-110 does not alter Bitcoin’s 21 million supply framework, block subsidy schedule or halving mechanism. The immediate risk comes instead from chain-split mechanics. As long as two branches share transaction history and accept some of the same signed transactions, users attempting to move coins on the minority branch can face complications that do not affect someone simply holding BTC without interacting with the fork.
One of the most important issues is replay risk. CoinDesk reported that the two branches can accept identical transactions, meaning a transaction intended to spend coins on the BIP-110 branch could potentially also be valid on the dominant Bitcoin chain under the relevant conditions. A user trying to sell or move minority-branch coins without properly separating them could therefore expose real BTC to unintended movement.
That is why the existence of a fork should not be interpreted as a reason for ordinary holders to rush to move coins or “claim” a new asset. Until wallets, exchanges and technical specialists provide clear procedures for safely distinguishing between branches, attempting to extract value from an illiquid minority chain may introduce far more operational risk than simply leaving existing BTC untouched.
For the broader BTC market, the important variables are less about the BIP number itself and more about whether the dispute becomes disruptive. A persistent chain split with significant hashpower, exchange uncertainty or transaction problems would deserve much more attention than a minority branch that remains effectively frozen. So far, the observed mining behavior has strongly favored the established Bitcoin chain.
What Happens Next for BIP-110?
The immediate future depends overwhelmingly on whether miners change their behavior. BIP-110’s official deployment schedule says mandatory signaling is supposed to continue through block 963,647 on an enforcing chain, with lock-in no later than 963,648 and activation of the reduced-data rules one difficulty period later at 965,664. But because the minority branch is moving far more slowly than Bitcoin’s dominant chain, those block-height milestones could arrive on radically different timelines for the two branches.
Scenario 1 — The Minority Chain Fades Away
If hashpower remains extremely low, BIP-110 blocks could continue arriving only sporadically. That would make transaction confirmation impractical, weaken incentives for wallets and exchanges to build infrastructure around the branch and further reduce its economic relevance. The dominant Bitcoin chain could simply continue operating while the BIP-110 branch becomes an increasingly distant historical fork.
This would not necessarily erase the BIP or prevent its supporters from maintaining software, but it would amount to a powerful economic rejection of the current activation strategy.
Scenario 2 — Miners Return to BIP-110
The situation could change if significant mining power moves to the enforcing branch. More hashpower would shorten expected block intervals, make progress toward the next difficulty adjustment more realistic and force exchanges, custodians and other infrastructure providers to take the split more seriously.
That is why raw node counts alone cannot settle this dispute. In a proof-of-work system, the ability to extend a chain securely and consistently matters enormously. The current branch can only become a serious competitor if miners are willing to dedicate meaningful computational resources to it.
Scenario 3 — The Fork Dies but the Debate Survives
This may ultimately be BIP-110’s most important legacy.
Even if the present branch never becomes economically relevant, the underlying dispute does not disappear. Bitcoin will still need to confront questions about arbitrary data, inscriptions, relay policy, protocol neutrality, node costs and the boundaries between “monetary” and “non-monetary” uses of blockspace.
The BIPs repository itself emphasizes that publication of a BIP does not mean the proposal has community consensus or is about to be adopted; final acceptance ultimately depends on Bitcoin users. BIP-110 is making that abstract principle visible in real time. Developers can specify rules and users can run them, but economic consensus emerges only when miners, nodes, infrastructure providers and holders coordinate around the same network.
|
KuCoin is celebrating its 9th anniversary with a special platform campaign filled with exclusive rewards, trading activities, and limited-time offers. Don’t miss the chance to participate and enjoy the benefits as the exchange marks nine years of growth and innovation. Visit the official campaign page now:
|
Conclusion — BIP-110 May Be Losing the Fork but Winning the Debate
As of August 10, the first verdict from the network looks difficult to ignore. BIP-110 entered mandatory signaling after just 2.53% of the previous difficulty period’s blocks signaled support. Its enforcing branch produced two blocks and stalled at 961,633, while the dominant Bitcoin chain continued moving forward and widened the gap substantially.
That does not technically erase BIP-110, and miners remain free to direct hashpower toward the minority branch. But without a major change in participation, the economics of proof-of-work make it difficult for such a small branch to function as a meaningful alternative network.
The bigger impact may therefore outlive the fork itself. BIP-110 has forced Bitcoin users to revisit a question that has followed the network through nearly every major protocol dispute: when developers, miners, node operators and economic users disagree, who ultimately decides what Bitcoin is?
The answer is unlikely to come from a single BIP or miner vote. It will come from the collective economic choices of the network — and, at least for now, those choices are overwhelmingly favoring the existing Bitcoin chain.
FAQs
Is BIP-110 the same as BIP-444 or RDTS?
BIP-110 is formally titled the Reduced Data Temporary Softfork, often shortened to RDTS. The BIP-110 project website also refers to it as RDTS and notes an association with the earlier BIP-444 naming. Readers may therefore encounter BIP-110, RDTS and BIP-444 in discussions of the same broader proposal lineage.
Is BIP-110 officially built into Bitcoin Core?
A BIP number does not mean a proposal has been adopted by Bitcoin Core or accepted by the Bitcoin community. The official BIPs repository explicitly states that publication only means a proposal met the repository’s formal criteria, not that it has consensus. BIP-110’s published specification points to a Bitcoin Knots-based reference implementation, while non-enforcing Bitcoin nodes have continued following blocks that BIP-110 nodes reject.
Does BIP-110 affect Lightning Network payments?
The proposal is primarily focused on Bitcoin base-layer consensus restrictions involving transaction data and certain script structures rather than changing Lightning’s payment-channel model. Its proponents state that known monetary use cases are intended to remain functional, although advanced or unusual Taproot constructions can face compatibility considerations during an active deployment.
Can BIP-110 delete existing Ordinals or inscriptions?
No. A consensus change cannot go backward through Bitcoin’s historical blockchain and erase data that has already been confirmed in past blocks. BIP-110 is designed to restrict certain future transaction structures during its active period. Historical inscriptions and other previously confirmed blockchain data remain part of the ledger.
Why is BIP-110 called a soft fork if a separate chain appeared?
A soft fork makes validity rules more restrictive: enforcing nodes reject some blocks that older or non-enforcing nodes would still consider valid. If nearly everyone follows the stricter rules, the network can remain on one chain. If significant participants disagree during activation, however, enforcing and non-enforcing nodes can temporarily or persistently follow different branches. That is what happened around BIP-110’s mandatory signaling window — the classification “soft fork” describes the direction of the rule change, not a guarantee that no chain split can occur.
Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Cryptocurrency investments carry risk. Please do your own research (DYOR).