Miners Balk as BIP-110 Stalls
Bitcoin’s latest protocol controversy entered a critical phase on Saturday, as block 961,632 triggered the mandatory signaling window for BIP-110—a proposal aimed at temporarily restricting non-financ
The lack of miner participation became glaringly obvious when the BIP-110-enforcing branch stalled at block 961,633 on Sunday. While the main Bitcoin chain advanced rapidly to block 961,721, the minority fork produced just two blocks before falling behind by a gap of 88 blocks. A pseudonymous mining group known as Roughnecks was responsible for both blocks on the stalled branch, using Ocean’s DATUM protocol to do so. On paper, any fork with consensus-level changes needs broad miner backing—but here, support remains isolated and thin.
Only 51 out of the preceding 2,016 blocks signaled for BIP-110, well below the 1,109 needed for activation.
The mandatory signaling window will last until block 965,664—about four weeks from now—but early signs suggest that BIP-110 is unlikely to reach its activation threshold through miner signaling alone.
Replay Attack Fears Cloud Fork
As talk of a possible chain split intensifies, technical risks have come into focus—especially replay attacks. If Bitcoin does split into two chains over BIP-110 enforcement, holders will find themselves with identical balances on both versions. However, transactions made on one chain could be “replayed” on the other due to shared transaction signatures, potentially causing users to lose their real BTC if they inadvertently spend coins on both sides.
Bitcoin developer Kevin Loaec sounded the alarm about this threat earlier this week, warning that users could lose funds if they are not careful during a split scenario. The issue is particularly acute because BIP-110 operates as a user-activated soft fork (UASF), relying on node operators rather than miners to enforce new rules. This means that while ordinary Bitcoin nodes accept all valid blocks regardless of version bits, BIP-110 nodes reject any block that does not signal support via version bit 4—creating fertile ground for accidental replay incidents.
It’s unclear how many users are prepared for such technical hazards.
See Also
Node Operators Hold the Keys
Unlike previous upgrades such as SegWit in 2017—which also used a user-driven approach—BIP-110 relies almost entirely on node operators to enforce its changes. The proposal was authored by pseudonymous developer Dathon Ohm and sets strict limits: most new output scripts would be capped at 34 bytes, OP_RETURN outputs at 83 bytes, and certain witness elements at 256 bytes. Taproot features would also face temporary restrictions, though unspent outputs created before activation are exempt.
From block 961,632 onward, nodes running BIP-110 software began rejecting any block lacking the required signaling mark. Meanwhile, standard Bitcoin nodes continued processing all blocks regardless of signaling status. This divergence led directly to the emergence—and rapid stalling—of the minority BIP-110 branch after only two blocks were mined under its stricter rules.
Major Voices Push Back Hard
Prominent industry leaders have not held back their criticism of BIP-110. Michael Saylor (MicroStrategy chairman) and Adam Back (Blockstream CEO) have both voiced strong opposition to the proposal in recent days. Back in particular warned that pushing through a consensus-level change without broad agreement could undermine Bitcoin’s credibility and might even render some unspent transaction outputs unspendable—a scenario that would have lasting consequences for user funds and network trust.
Their concerns echo broader skepticism among miners and node operators alike: while SegWit’s UASF in 2017 eventually succeeded after a tense standoff with miners, current conditions look very different. As reported by coindesk.com, miner support for BIP-110 has seldom exceeded 2.5%, making it one of the least popular soft fork attempts in recent memory.
Why it Matters: Practical Impact
The immediate impact of BIP-110’s stalled rollout is practical uncertainty for users and developers alike. With only two blocks produced under its rules so far—and an 88-block lag behind the dominant chain—the forked branch appears isolated and unlikely to gain traction unless there is a dramatic shift in miner or node sentiment before block 965,664.
For everyday Bitcoin holders considering transactions during this period of potential chain split risk, caution is paramount due to replay attack threats and possible confusion over which chain represents “real” BTC. Developers are watching closely as well: if transaction restrictions take effect at block 965,664 without sufficient adoption or clarity around replay protection mechanisms, some applications may need urgent updates or risk malfunctioning.
Ultimately, while BIP-110 was intended as a temporary measure to limit non-payment data for one year, its practical effect so far has been more divisive than decisive—raising questions about governance models and upgrade paths for Bitcoin.
What the market is waiting for
If miner signaling for BIP-110 reaches the required 55% threshold—1,109 marked blocks out of 2,016—before block 963,647, BIP-110 will lock in for activation; otherwise, the minority BIP-110 chain may continue to stall or split further, with replay attack risks for holders remaining unresolved as of now.
