Bitcoin’s BIP-110 minority branch has effectively stalled after producing only two blocks following the start of mandatory signaling on August 8. The branch stopped at height 961,633, while Bitcoin’s dominant chain continued normally. By early August 11, the main chain had reached 961,959, putting it 326 blocks ahead. New consensus rules can be enforced by software without automatically attracting enough mining and economic support to sustain the resulting chain.
The official Bitcoin Improvement Proposals repository has since changed BIP-110’s status to Closed, with its changelog citing the chain split and stalled mining. That status is an editorial classification, not a network command: the repository notes that BIP publication does not determine adoption, which ultimately rests with Bitcoin users. BIP-110 can remain reproducible as code even though its proposed branch has failed to gain meaningful momentum.
Minority Branch Inherits Bitcoin’s Mining Difficulty
BIP-110, formally titled “Reduced Data Temporary Softfork,” proposed temporary consensus restrictions on several methods of embedding arbitrary data in Bitcoin transactions. Its modified BIP9 deployment required 1,109 of 2,016 blocks, or 55%, to signal support, but signaling peaked at only 51 blocks, about 2.53%, before mandatory signaling began. The proposal entered its forced-signaling window with miner support far below its own threshold.
From block 961,632 through 963,647, enforcing nodes were programmed to reject blocks that did not signal bit 4. Miners following those rules produced alternative blocks 961,632 and 961,633 before the branch stopped advancing. Most miners continued building the dominant Bitcoin chain, leaving the minority branch with little observed proof-of-work production.
Difficulty compounds that problem. Bitcoin recalibrates mining difficulty every 2,016 blocks, targeting roughly two weeks per period when hash rate is stable. The BIP-110 branch inherited the difficulty in force at the split and must still progress through almost an entire adjustment period before that mechanism can reduce it. With little hash power, Bitcoin’s inherited difficulty becomes a major obstacle to continued block production.
One estimate placed the next adjustment roughly 6.3 years away at the observed mining pace. That is not a fixed deadline: additional hash power could shorten it sharply, while lower participation could extend it. The estimate illustrates the branch’s current mining economics rather than predicting when a retarget will actually occur.
Fork Fallout Reaches Bitcoin’s BIP Process
The dispute also reached Bitcoin’s proposal-management process. On August 9, BIP editor Mark “Murch” Erhardt moved to remove Luke Dashjr as an editor, alleging conflicts of interest and departures from editorial procedure around BIP-110. Dashjr rejected the allegations. On August 10, repository maintainer Bryan Bishop confirmed that Dashjr was no longer a permissioned user of the BIP repository. The personnel dispute is separate from the fork but exposed tensions over handling contentious consensus proposals.
For exchanges, custodians and wallet providers, the episode reinforces the need for predetermined fork policies covering confirmations, ticker treatment, node upgrades and minority-asset support. Bitcoin developer documentation emphasizes cumulative proof of work when evaluating competing histories, while the BIP repository says acceptance ultimately rests with users. A competing ledger gains operational relevance only when miners, infrastructure providers and economic participants continue to recognize and secure it.
BIP-110’s branch remains technically reproducible, but its two-block history demonstrates the gap between defining rules and establishing a viable network around them. Its Closed status documents the stalled rollout; the chain itself shows the practical consequence. Bitcoin governance combines code with coordination, proof of work and economic acceptance rather than deriving authority from a proposal document alone.
