TLDR
BIP-110 triggered a chain split on August 8, 2026, but the minority chain stalled after producing only two blocks.
Just 2.53% of miners signaled support, far short of the 55% threshold the proposal needed to activate.
Michael Saylor published a 110-point essay calling the plan dangerous to Bitcoin’s neutrality.
BIP-110 launched without replay protection, putting holders at risk during the short-lived split.
Luke Dashjr was removed as a Bitcoin BIP editor after developers raised concerns about how he handled BIP-110.
Bitcoin went through a short governance test this month. A proposal called BIP-110 tried to limit certain types of data stored on the blockchain. It failed within hours, and the fallout led to a separate dispute over one of Bitcoin’s longtime developers.
BIP-110, known as the Reduced Data Temporary Softfork, aimed to restrict non-financial data such as Ordinals inscriptions and Runes. Supporters said this data clogs the network and raises fees for regular users. The rules would have lasted about one year before expiring.
What Happened to BIP-110
The plan needed 55% of miners to signal support during a set window. Instead, only 51 out of 2,016 blocks did so, just 2.53%.
Despite the low support, nodes running the new rules split off from the main Bitcoin network at block 961,632 on August 8, 2026. This created a smaller, separate chain.
That chain produced two blocks in eight hours. Then it stopped completely. The main Bitcoin network kept running at its normal pace and pulled far ahead.
Miners avoided the new chain largely because of money. Ordinals and Runes transactions pay fees, and those fees have pushed transaction costs above $20 during busy periods. BIP-110 would have removed that income for miners.
Michael Saylor, chairman of Strategy, wrote a 110-point essay opposing the plan. He argued that Bitcoin’s value comes from treating all valid transactions equally, and that blocking one type could lead to blocking others later.
Adam Back, a co-founder of Blockstream, also spoke against the proposal. He said enforcing rules without wide agreement was riskier than the spam the plan tried to stop.
The failed fork also carried a technical risk. BIP-110 did not include replay protection, meaning a transaction on one chain could accidentally also process on the other. Node operators were told to avoid moving coins until the situation settled.
A mining group called Roughnecks said it plans to keep mining the stalled chain. The group has discussed changing the mining algorithm entirely, which would create a separate cryptocurrency rather than a Bitcoin fork. No exchange has listed this chain as of August 10.
Dashjr Removed From BIP Editors
Separately, longtime Bitcoin developer Luke Dashjr was removed as an editor of Bitcoin Improvement Proposals. GitHub records show developer Jon Atack merged the removal request into the bitcoin/bips repository on August 10.
The move followed concerns raised by fellow editor Mark Erhardt on August 9. Erhardt claimed Dashjr had applied editorial rules inconsistently while helping promote BIP-110, including how quickly it was numbered and updated.
Dashjr rejected the claims. He posted on X that the removal was “an abuse of power by Core” and said Core had no authority to remove him.
Five editors remain listed under the BIP process: Bryan Bishop, Jon Atack, Mark Erhardt, Olaoluwa Osuntokun and Ruben Somsen. BIP-110 itself is now marked Closed in the official repository.
Other developers, including Jameson Lopp, pointed out that no formal process exists for removing a BIP editor. This gap remains unresolved even after Dashjr’s removal.
As of the latest check, roughly 55 hours after the split, the stalled BIP-110 chain still showed no new blocks beyond block 961,633. The main Bitcoin network has continued forward without interruption.
