Bitcoin’s BIP-110 Governance Experiment Collapses Fast

Bitcoin's latest governance experiment has ended almost as soon as it began.

Summary:

BIP-110 failed to gain sufficient miner support and stalled after two blocks.
The minority chain secured only 2.53% of Bitcoin’s hash rate.
Supporters wanted to restrict non-financial data on Bitcoin for one year.
The outcome reinforces the importance of broad consensus for Bitcoin protocol changes.

The BIP-110 soft fork split from the main Bitcoin blockchain at block 961,632 but mined only two blocks before effectively stalling, after attracting just 2.53% of the network’s mining power. The failed activation demonstrates how difficult it remains to alter Bitcoin’s consensus rules without overwhelming support from miners, node operators and the broader ecosystem.

Why the minority chain stopped almost immediately

The fork entered its enforcement phase by requiring participating miners to signal support for BIP-110. When the proposal failed to attract sufficient hash power, two competing chains briefly emerged.

The main Bitcoin network accepted a standard block mined by Antpool, while nodes enforcing BIP-110 rejected it and instead followed a competing block produced by Roughnecks, a miner associated with Ocean Pool, where Bitcoin Knots creator Luke Dashjr serves as CTO.

The split quickly became unsustainable.

Although the new chain inherited Bitcoin’s full mining difficulty of roughly 127.48 trillion, it controlled only 2.53% of the network’s computational power. As a result, block production slowed dramatically while the main Bitcoin blockchain continued advancing at its normal pace.

BIP-110 activation outcome

Activation block: 961,632
Required miner support: 55%
Actual miner support: 2.53%
Blocks mined by minority chain: 2
Status: Chain effectively stalled
Next difficulty adjustment: Approximately 350 days

Why BIP-110 matters beyond a failed fork

Although BIP-110 stalled almost immediately, the debate surrounding it reflects a recurring question that has shaped Bitcoin’s development for more than a decade: who ultimately decides how the network evolves.

The proposal sought to restrict non-financial data, including Ordinals-style inscriptions, for one year. Supporters argued that Bitcoin should prioritize monetary transactions over permanent data storage, saying inscriptions consume scarce block space, increase fees during periods of congestion and place additional storage demands on node operators. Critics countered that valid transactions should remain content-neutral, regardless of how users choose to utilize block space, provided they comply with Bitcoin’s consensus rules.

Epic karma.
You can’t make this up.https://t.co/PvxqN3w1ib

— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) August 8, 2026

The dispute echoes earlier governance conflicts that defined Bitcoin’s history. During the blocksize debate between 2015 and 2017, developers, miners, businesses and users clashed over whether Bitcoin should increase its block capacity to improve throughput. The disagreement eventually led to the failed SegWit2x compromise and the creation of Bitcoin Cash, illustrating that protocol changes lacking broad consensus often result in competing networks rather than changes to Bitcoin itself.

BIP-110 differs from the blocksize wars because it focuses on transaction policy rather than capacity. Yet the underlying governance principle is similar. Bitcoin’s protocol evolves only when developers, miners, exchanges, wallet providers and users largely agree on the direction of change. Even proposals with vocal supporters struggle to gain traction if they fail to attract economic and mining consensus.

The outcome also reinforces an important technical reality. A minority chain inherits Bitcoin’s mining difficulty but not its security budget. Without sufficient hash rate, producing blocks becomes progressively slower, making it difficult for an alternative chain to remain economically viable even if its software continues operating.

The failed fork highlights Bitcoin’s governance model

Unlike many blockchain networks where protocol upgrades can be implemented through foundation-led governance or token-holder voting, Bitcoin changes require broad coordination across miners, node operators, developers, exchanges and infrastructure providers.

The BIP-110 episode illustrates that miner signaling alone is insufficient if the wider ecosystem declines to adopt new consensus rules.

Equally important was the economic reality facing the minority chain. Mining difficulty adjusts based on historical network conditions, not immediately after a split. With only a fraction of Bitcoin’s global hash rate, supporters would have needed months of sustained mining before the network could meaningfully rebalance its difficulty, making continued operation economically impractical.

What happens next for BIP-110 supporters

Attention has already shifted away from reviving the stalled chain under its current parameters.

Some supporters have begun discussing the possibility of replacing Bitcoin’s proof-of-work algorithm altogether, a move that would eliminate compatibility with the existing Bitcoin network and effectively create a separate cryptocurrency rather than modifying Bitcoin itself.

For Bitcoin, however, the outcome reinforces a familiar principle. Significant protocol changes remain extremely difficult to implement without overwhelming agreement across the network’s technical, economic and mining participants. Future debates over inscriptions, block space usage and transaction policies are likely to continue, but any proposal seeking to modify consensus rules will face the same requirement for broad ecosystem support before it can become part of Bitcoin’s main chain.

The information presented in this article is intended for informational purposes only and should not be interpreted as financial, investment, or trading advice. Coinspress.com does not promote or advocate for any particular investment strategy, asset, or cryptocurrency project. Cryptocurrency markets are highly volatile and unpredictable – always perform your own research and seek guidance from a qualified financial professional before making any investment decisions.

Author

Alexander Zdravkov

Reporter at CoinsPress

Alexander Zdravkov is a market analyst and crypto journalist with interests in economics, broader financial markets and digital assets. His journey into crypto began more than four years ago, driven by a fascination with the rapid evolution of blockchain technology and the transformative potential of decentralized finance. He began analyzing market cycles and identifying emerging trends before they reach the mainstream. He holds a degree in International Relations - a background that helped shape his broader perspective on global economics, geopolitics, and the interconnected nature of modern financial markets. Whether covering the latest developments in the crypto sector or exploring broader macroeconomic themes, Alexander focuses on giving readers context rather than simply repeating headlines. During his career, he has authored more than 10,000 articles covering cryptocurrencies, traditional finance, and global market developments. His work spans everything from Bitcoin and altcoins to macroeconomic trends influencing risk assets worldwide.