Bitcoin’s BIP-110 Fork Splits Off, Immediately Falls Behind Main Chain
A controversial Bitcoin improvement proposal triggered the chain split that critics had warned about, but the BIP-110 fork immediately stalled with insufficient mining support. The forked chain fell 48 blocks behind the main network within hours, producing blocks every 6.9 hours instead of Bitcoin's standard 10-minute target.
The Anticipated Fork Materializes at Block 961,632
Bitcoin experienced the chain split that opponents of BIP-110 had long predicted could occur if the controversial proposal reached activation without meaningful miner backing. The split happened at block 961,632, based on monitoring data from BIP-110 tracking infrastructure cited by Bitcoin commentators. Almost immediately, the fork began falling dramatically behind the main Bitcoin network, revealing the extent of its mining disadvantage.
The technical reality became stark within hours. While the standard Bitcoin chain progressed to block 961,681, nodes enforcing BIP-110 rules remained at block 961,633—lagging 48 blocks behind. Bitcoin typically produces approximately one block every 10 minutes through its distributed network of miners. The BIP-110 branch, by contrast, generated blocks at an average interval of about 6.9 hours, a nearly 41-fold slowdown caused by the absence of meaningful computational power supporting the fork.
Mining Power Overwhelmingly Remains on Bitcoin’s Main Chain
The distribution of mining resources told the definitive story. The overwhelming majority of Bitcoin’s hash power continued extending the conventional chain, leaving the BIP-110 branch severely underpowered and unable to maintain the network performance characteristics that make a blockchain functional. This concentration of mining support demonstrated a fundamental principle of blockchain consensus: changes without genuine broad support cannot succeed, regardless of their technical specifications or theoretical merits.
Prominent figures across the Bitcoin ecosystem quickly weighed in on the outcome. Blockstream CEO and longtime Bitcoin developer Adam Back responded with pointed brevity, stating simply: “They forked off and found out.” His comment captured the sentiment of Bitcoin Core developers who had consistently maintained that BIP-110 lacked the miner consensus necessary for viability. Michael Saylor, executive chairman of MicroStrategy—one of the world’s largest corporate Bitcoin holders—offered quantified analysis: with only 2.6% miner signaling behind it, BIP-110 never achieved broad support. Saylor characterized the situation as Bitcoin functioning exactly as intended, with the network successfully rejecting changes that lack genuine consensus.
Divergent Perspectives on What Comes Next
Not all observers conceded defeat. Luke Dashjr, the Bitcoin developer who championed BIP-110, rejected the failure characterization, accusing opponents of deliberate misrepresentation and urging supporters to ignore what he described as gaslighting. He acknowledged that block production had slowed on the BIP-110 chain but argued this presented no fundamental obstacle.
The underlying dispute centered on Bitcoin’s essential purpose. BIP-110 sought to restrict arbitrary non-financial data embedded in Bitcoin transactions, based on the philosophy that Bitcoin should operate primarily as peer-to-peer money rather than general-purpose data storage. Bitcoin Core developers had consistently countered that restrictive policies could not succeed technically, since data would find alternative pathways. In 2025, Bitcoin Core 30 effectively resolved the philosophical debate by increasing the default data-storage limit from 83 bytes to 100,000 bytes, directly endorsing data flexibility over restriction.
The BIP-110 fork serves as a real-world demonstration of how blockchain consensus actually functions—changes cannot force adoption without sufficient network participation, ensuring that community agreement remains the ultimate arbiter of protocol evolution.
Source: U.Today. Not financial advice.