BIP-110 Fork Stalls at Two Blocks — Why This Minority Chain Risks Permanent Obsolescence

The BIP-110 minority chain produced only two blocks roughly eight hours after its launch on Saturday, signaling a catastrophic failure for the breakaway network. This stagnation leaves the fork sitting at block 961,633, while the main Bitcoin chain has already progressed to block 961,681 (BIP-110 situation monitor).

The Network Split Leaves a Stagnant Chain in Its Wake

The divergence occurred at block 961,632, when nodes running BIP-110 software began rejecting any block that did not signal support for the proposal (CoinDesk). This hard fork—a permanent divergence from the previous version of a blockchain—created a scenario where the two chains could no longer coexist as a single ledger. The gap of 48 blocks between the two chains represents nearly a full day of missed activity on the minority side (CoinDesk).

The primary driver of this split was BIP-110 (Bitcoin Improvement Proposal-110), a proposal designed to prohibit the storage of non-financial data, such as text or images, within Bitcoin transactions for a one-year period. Supporters of the proposal argue that such data clogs the network and increases costs for users attempting to send actual payments (CoinDesk). However, the movement failed to gain the necessary traction to prevent a split, as only 2.53% of blocks signaled for BIP-110 over the two weeks leading up to the event (CoinDesk). This is significantly below the 55% threshold required for a standard protocol activation without causing a network split.

The technical reality of the split has left the new chain in a state of near-total paralysis. While the main Bitcoin network maintains its standard rhythm, the minority chain is struggling to find any momentum. This lack of miner engagement ensures that the chain remains a curiosity rather than a viable alternative for any serious participant in the ecosystem.

Mining Scarcity Traps the Minority Chain in a Slow-Motion Cycle

The breakaway chain faces a mechanical obstacle that prevents it from recovering its block production speed. Bitcoin uses a difficulty adjustment mechanism—a protocol rule that adjusts the computational difficulty every 2,016 blocks to ensure blocks arrive every ten minutes—which is currently calibrated for the massive hash power of the main network (CoinDesk). Because the minority chain has a tiny share of the total machine power, it cannot produce blocks at the required ten-minute interval (CoinDesk).

The current difficulty setting forces the minority chain to produce blocks at much longer intervals. The BIP-110 situation monitor projects that the chain will not complete its next difficulty adjustment for approximately 350 days (CoinDesk). In contrast, the main Bitcoin network will complete its next adjustment in roughly 14 days (CoinDesk).

This discrepancy creates a feedback loop that favors the established chain. Without the ability to adjust difficulty, the minority chain is effectively stuck in a state of permanent latency. This makes the chain increasingly useless for any application requiring timely transaction finality (the point at which a transaction cannot be altered or canceled).

AntPool vs. Ocean: The Battle for Block Production

The initial blocks of the fork highlighted the deep divide between major mining pools. AntPool, a massive mining pool—a group of miners that combine their computational power to increase their chances of finding a block—mined the first non-signaling block that the rest of the network accepted (CoinDesk). This block was subsequently rejected by BIP-110 nodes, creating the initial rift.

The alternative chain, which the breakaway miners followed, was produced by a miner using Ocean (CoinDesk). This split illustrates the fundamental tension between miner autonomy and protocol governance. While proponents of BIP-110 want to dictate what constitutes a valid transaction, opponents argue that anyone paying a fee should have the right to use the block space as they see fit (CoinDesk).

Security Risks Emerge from the Bifurcated Ledger

The existence of two separate chains with identical transaction sets introduces a novel attack vector for sophisticated actors. Because both chains accept the same signed transactions, a user could theoretically send coins on the fork chain and then rebroadcast that same transaction on the main Bitcoin chain (CoinDesk). This would allow the user to collect real BTC from the same seller twice, effectively exploiting the lack of synchronization between the two ledgers (CoinDesk).

This risk is compounded by the extreme difficulty in confirming trades on the minority chain. Because the chain is producing blocks only once every several hours, the time required to reach a level of security sufficient for high-value transfers is unacceptably high (CoinDesk). Any user attempting to trade on the minority fork is essentially operating in a high-risk, low-liquidity environment.

The window for the BIP-110 nodes to demand signaling support runs until block 963,647 (CoinDesk). Given the current block production rate, the minority chain is projected to fail to reach this milestone within the designated timeframe (CoinDesk). This failure effectively seals the fate of the fork as a dead-end chain.

Key Developments to Watch

• BIP-110 enforcement window (by block 963,647) — the expiration of the signaling requirement will determine if the fork can ever regain momentum or if it remains a dead chain.
• Bitcoin difficulty adjustment (by early 2026) — the next scheduled adjustment on the main chain will confirm the network's continued dominance over minority forks.
• Miner hash rate distribution (continuous) — the ratio of power between AntPool and Ocean will dictate the stability of any future chain splits.

If the community cannot agree on the definition of a 'legitimate' transaction, does the decentralized nature of Bitcoin become its greatest vulnerability?