BIP 110, a temporary soft fork designed to limit non-financial data recorded on Bitcoin, did cause a split at block 961,632. But its branch only produced two blocks in eight hours. The network has just reminded that a rule without minors remains above all an intention.
In brief
- The BIP-110 branch produced only two blocks in its first eight hours, compared to 48 on the dominant chain.
- Only 51 of the 2,016 blocks in the previous period reported BIP-110, or 2.53%.
- The minority fork technically exists, but its lack of computing power makes it almost unusable.
Two blocks in eight hours: the BIP-110 branch stalls
Since block 961,632, Bitcoin has been evolving on two parallel chains. The first concentrates the vast majority of miners, exchange platforms and users; the second groups together BIP-110 compatible nodes, which reject any block not carrying the activation signal required by the proposal. This division materializes the decisive phase of BIP 110 announced in recent days.
The breaking point is simple. At height 961,632, AntPool produced a block without the signal required by BIP-110. The ordinary nodes accepted it, but the nodes that activated the proposal rejected it: from that moment on, the two groups were no longer watching the same channel.
Roughnecks, through the OCEAN pool, then found a block conforming to bit signal 4. This block gave BIP-110 proponents a separate branch on which to continue. The fork was born, but with very little computing power to move it forward.
According to thearticle from SpazioCrypto published on August 9, 2026 at 09:08 UTC, this branch had only produced two blocks in its first eight hours, compared to 48 on the dominant chain. The gap therefore does not describe two networks of comparable strength: Bitcoin continued to function normally on one side, while confirmations became rarer on the BIP-110 branch.
At 11:40 UTC, the BIP 110 public monitor placed the main chain at block 961,725, which is 94 blocks tracked since the start of period 477. None of these blocks reported BIP-110. The risk of split mentioned the day before by Tremplin.io had become real, but the minority branch left with a considerable handicap.
The fork lacks power, no rules
The BIP-110 branch is moving slowly because it retains the mining difficulty of Bitcoin while attracting a tiny fraction of miners. With little computing power facing a difficulty calibrated for the entire network, finding the next block can take hours or more. Transactions then remain pending and the nodes concerned become difficult to use on a daily basis.
A nuance matters here. The 2.53% corresponds to 51 signaling blocks out of the 2,016 blocks of period 476. This rate does not exactly measure the computing power committed to the minority branch: a miner can change position, and chance influences the production of blocks. It nevertheless gives the order of magnitude of the balance of power observed before the split.
THE official text of BIP 110 provides a mandatory reporting window between blocks 961,632 and 963,647. The branch must then reach block 963,648 to enter lockdown, then block 965,664 to enforce restrictions for 52,416 blocks, or about a year at Bitcoin’s normal rate.
However, the protocol calendar is counted in blocks, not days. If the branch remains almost immobile, the activation announced for the beginning of September mechanically moves away. To speak of a channel being “dead” after eight hours would be excessive. On the other hand, a chain that confirms almost no transactions has, for the moment, neither the appearance nor the usefulness of a competing Bitcoin.
BIP-110’s initial failure shifts debate to nodes
The first verdict is less about registrations and more about the governance of Bitcoin. A UASF, or user-activated soft fork, allows node operators to refuse blocks that are valid for the rest of the network. This pressure only works if miners, platforms, custodians and economic actors deem this chain important enough to follow it.
Defenders of BIP-110 invoked the precedent of SegWit and BIP-148 in 2017. The comparison has its limits. At the time, the threat of rejection by users was part of a much broader balance of power. Here, the dominant chain continues without visible disruption, while the breakaway branch struggles to produce its own blocks.
There remains a more radical option: changing the proof of work algorithm to open mining to other machines. This choice would create a durable hard fork with separate infrastructure, assets, and security. This relief plan shows how far the conflict over bitcoin neutrality can go.
A recovery, however, would require miners and platforms ready to manage deposits, withdrawals and replay risks. There is no indication, at this stage, that they are taking this path.
In short, BIP-110 succeeded in creating a sector, but not in giving it economic weight. Two blocks, 2.53% prior reporting and no visible support from the dominant chain make up an almost standstill start. Our analysis of the risks of BIP 110 therefore remains entirely relevant: without miners or economic relays, a fork can exist in the code and disappear in fact.
Maximize your Tremplin.io experience with our ‘Read to Earn’ program! For every article you read, earn points and access exclusive rewards. Sign up now and start earning benefits.
