The BIP-110 Bitcoin Fork That Mined Two Blocks and Died: What Happened on August 9, 2026
On August 9, 2026, Bitcoin split at block height 961,632 when BIP 110 nodes rejected non signaling blocks, but the forked chain mined only two blocks in eight hours before stalling, with 99.85% of hashpower remaining... BIP 110 proposed a one year ban on arbitrary data embedding (targeting Ordinals and BRC 20 tokens...
Published byEdited with DeepSeek-V4-FlashImages generated with GPT Image 1.5
On August 9, 2026, Bitcoin split at block height 961,632 when BIP 110 nodes rejected non signaling blocks, but the forked chain mined only two blocks in eight hours before stalling, with 99.85% of hashpower remaining...
BIP 110 proposed a one year ban on arbitrary data embedding (targeting Ordinals and BRC 20 tokens) but never exceeded 2.64% miner support, making its failure nearly certain before the split even began.
The minority chain's 0.15% hashpower share left it unable to sustain regular block production, and major exchanges had warned about replay attack risks, effectively declaring the fork dead on arrival.
What happened when Bitcoin's blockchain split on August 9, 2026, due to the BIP-110 anti-Ordinals fork proposal, and what were the key detaiAn editorial visualization of the Bitcoin blockchain split at block height 961,632 on August 9, 2026, triggered by the BIP-110 soft fork proposal.
AI Prompt
Create a landscape editorial hero image for this Studio Global article: What happened when Bitcoin's blockchain split on August 9, 2026, due to the BIP-110 anti-Ordinals fork proposal, and what were the key detai. Article summary: Here is a comprehensive account of the BIP-110 fork event based on available reporting.. Topic tags: general, general web, user generated. Style: premium digital editorial illustration, source-backed research mood, clean composition, high detail, modern web publication hero. Use reference image context only for broad subject, composition, and topical grounding; do not copy the exact image. Avoid: logos, brand marks, copyrighted characters, real person likenesses, fake screenshots, UI text, readable text, watermarks, charts with fake numbers, clickbait thumbnails, icons, and tiny thumbnail layouts. Make it useful as an illustrative visual, not as factual evidenc
openai.com
On August 9, 2026, the Bitcoin blockchain experienced a consensus split that was over almost before it began. Nodes enforcing the BIP-110 soft fork rejected blocks that did not signal support, creating a minority chain that mined just two blocks and then stalled. Within hours, the main chain had pulled 57 blocks ahead. Here is what happened, how it worked, and why it failed so quickly.
What Happened
At block height 961,632, Bitcoin split into two chains. Nodes running BIP-110 software began rejecting blocks that did not set bit 4 in their version field — a mandatory signaling requirement . Two blocks were produced at the same height: AntPool mined block 961,632 without signaling support (accepted by the main chain), while a different block at the same height signaled support (accepted by enforcing nodes). The enforcing chain produced one more block (961,633) and then stopped entirely.
Studio Global AI
Continue your research
This page includes a source-backed answer you can continue inside Studio Global.
What is the short answer to "The BIP-110 Bitcoin Fork That Mined Two Blocks and Died: What Happened on August 9, 2026"?
On August 9, 2026, Bitcoin split at block height 961,632 when BIP 110 nodes rejected non signaling blocks, but the forked chain mined only two blocks in eight hours before stalling, with 99.85% of hashpower remaining...
What are the key points to validate first?
On August 9, 2026, Bitcoin split at block height 961,632 when BIP 110 nodes rejected non signaling blocks, but the forked chain mined only two blocks in eight hours before stalling, with 99.85% of hashpower remaining... BIP 110 proposed a one year ban on arbitrary data embedding (targeting Ordinals and BRC 20 tokens) but never exceeded 2.64% miner support, making its failure nearly certain before the split even began.
What should I do next in practice?
The minority chain's 0.15% hashpower share left it unable to sustain regular block production, and major exchanges had warned about replay attack risks, effectively declaring the fork dead on arrival.
The BIP-110 Bitcoin Fork That Mined Two Blocks and Died: What Happened on August 9, 2026
On August 9, 2026, Bitcoin split at block height 961,632 when BIP 110 nodes rejected non signaling blocks, but the forked chain mined only two blocks in eight hours before stalling, with 99.85% of hashpower remaining... BIP 110 proposed a one year ban on arbitrary data embedding (targeting Ordinals and BRC 20 tokens...
Published byEdited with DeepSeek-V4-FlashImages generated with GPT Image 1.5
On August 9, 2026, Bitcoin split at block height 961,632 when BIP 110 nodes rejected non signaling blocks, but the forked chain mined only two blocks in eight hours before stalling, with 99.85% of hashpower remaining...
BIP 110 proposed a one year ban on arbitrary data embedding (targeting Ordinals and BRC 20 tokens) but never exceeded 2.64% miner support, making its failure nearly certain before the split even began.
The minority chain's 0.15% hashpower share left it unable to sustain regular block production, and major exchanges had warned about replay attack risks, effectively declaring the fork dead on arrival.
What happened when Bitcoin's blockchain split on August 9, 2026, due to the BIP-110 anti-Ordinals fork proposal, and what were the key detaiAn editorial visualization of the Bitcoin blockchain split at block height 961,632 on August 9, 2026, triggered by the BIP-110 soft fork proposal.
AI Prompt
Create a landscape editorial hero image for this Studio Global article: What happened when Bitcoin's blockchain split on August 9, 2026, due to the BIP-110 anti-Ordinals fork proposal, and what were the key detai. Article summary: Here is a comprehensive account of the BIP-110 fork event based on available reporting.. Topic tags: general, general web, user generated. Style: premium digital editorial illustration, source-backed research mood, clean composition, high detail, modern web publication hero. Use reference image context only for broad subject, composition, and topical grounding; do not copy the exact image. Avoid: logos, brand marks, copyrighted characters, real person likenesses, fake screenshots, UI text, readable text, watermarks, charts with fake numbers, clickbait thumbnails, icons, and tiny thumbnail layouts. Make it useful as an illustrative visual, not as factual evidenc
openai.com
On August 9, 2026, the Bitcoin blockchain experienced a consensus split that was over almost before it began. Nodes enforcing the BIP-110 soft fork rejected blocks that did not signal support, creating a minority chain that mined just two blocks and then stalled. Within hours, the main chain had pulled 57 blocks ahead. Here is what happened, how it worked, and why it failed so quickly.
What Happened
At block height 961,632, Bitcoin split into two chains. Nodes running BIP-110 software began rejecting blocks that did not set bit 4 in their version field — a mandatory signaling requirement . Two blocks were produced at the same height: AntPool mined block 961,632 without signaling support (accepted by the main chain), while a different block at the same height signaled support (accepted by enforcing nodes). The enforcing chain produced one more block (961,633) and then stopped entirely.
Studio Global AI
Continue your research
This page includes a source-backed answer you can continue inside Studio Global.
What is the short answer to "The BIP-110 Bitcoin Fork That Mined Two Blocks and Died: What Happened on August 9, 2026"?
On August 9, 2026, Bitcoin split at block height 961,632 when BIP 110 nodes rejected non signaling blocks, but the forked chain mined only two blocks in eight hours before stalling, with 99.85% of hashpower remaining...
What are the key points to validate first?
On August 9, 2026, Bitcoin split at block height 961,632 when BIP 110 nodes rejected non signaling blocks, but the forked chain mined only two blocks in eight hours before stalling, with 99.85% of hashpower remaining... BIP 110 proposed a one year ban on arbitrary data embedding (targeting Ordinals and BRC 20 tokens) but never exceeded 2.64% miner support, making its failure nearly certain before the split even began.
What should I do next in practice?
The minority chain's 0.15% hashpower share left it unable to sustain regular block production, and major exchanges had warned about replay attack risks, effectively declaring the fork dead on arrival.
Over eight hours, the main chain advanced to block 961,690 — a 57-block gap — while the BIP-110 branch remained stuck at 961,633 . On-chain analysis confirmed that 99.85% of Bitcoin's hashpower stayed with the original chain .
Technical Mechanism
BIP-110, formally the "Reduced Data Temporary Soft Fork," proposed a one-year restriction on arbitrary data embedding in Bitcoin transactions. It specifically targeted:
Ordinals inscriptions
Oversized OP_RETURN payloads
BRC-20 token data
Repurposed Taproot data storage
The proposal was designed as a User-Activated Soft Fork (UASF) — it relied on node enforcement rather than miner hashpower majority . The mandatory signaling window ran from block 961,632 to 963,647. To lock in, BIP-110 required 55% of blocks (1,109 of 2,016) to signal support within a single difficulty retarget period, with activation at block 965,664 . If activated, restrictions would expire automatically after 52,416 blocks (roughly one year) .
Miner Support: Almost Zero
BIP-110 never achieved meaningful miner buy-in. The numbers tell the story clearly:
Metric
Value
Hashrate signaling before fork
~0.42%–2.64% of total network
Hashrate at fork moment
~2.53% of network
Blocks mined on fork chain
2 blocks
Network share of fork chain
Effectively 0.15% of hashpower
On August 1, 2026 — over a week before the split — on-chain tracking service Farside UK declared BIP-110 "mathematically finished," stating it could never reach its 55% threshold .
Network Impact
The split was brief and one-sided:
The main chain advanced from 961,632 to 961,690 while the fork stayed at 961,633 — a 57-block gap .
Only two blocks were mined on the forked chain in over eight hours .
A "silent miner boycott" effectively halted the enforcing chain, as miners refused to build on the minority branch .
99.85% of hashpower remained on the original chain .
Opposing Arguments
BIP-110 was highly divisive, with criticism centering on several key points:
Permissionless innovation: Opponents argued that banning Ordinals and inscriptions violated Bitcoin's ethos of permissionless use .
Economic consensus override: Critics said that using a UASF with negligible miner support was an end-run around the normal Bitcoin improvement process .
Censorship precedent: Restricting transaction data types at the consensus level could set a dangerous precedent for future content-based censorship .
No community consensus: The proposal was "not an approved Bitcoin upgrade," and prominent figures like Adam Back and Jameson Lopp warned of chain-split risks .
Price Reaction
Available reports do not detail a specific BTC price crash. The event was widely anticipated and the fork's failure was essentially preordained, so broader market impact appears to have been minimal. The most significant market reaction may have been the collapse in value of Ordinals-related assets and BRC-20 tokens on the forked chain, though specific price data is not covered in available sources.
Prospects for the Minority Chain
The minority chain has effectively no viable future:
Two blocks total — no sustained mining activity .
0.15% of network hashpower is far below the threshold needed to secure any blockchain against reorganization attacks .
Major exchanges had warned about replay attack risks and were unlikely to support the chain .
The fork was described as "dead on arrival," "dying with a whimper," and "BIP-110 forking itself into oblivion" .
Without a significant and sustained miner migration (which never materialized), the fork chain cannot produce blocks at a regular cadence and is functionally dead.
Over eight hours, the main chain advanced to block 961,690 — a 57-block gap — while the BIP-110 branch remained stuck at 961,633 . On-chain analysis confirmed that 99.85% of Bitcoin's hashpower stayed with the original chain .
Technical Mechanism
BIP-110, formally the "Reduced Data Temporary Soft Fork," proposed a one-year restriction on arbitrary data embedding in Bitcoin transactions. It specifically targeted:
Ordinals inscriptions
Oversized OP_RETURN payloads
BRC-20 token data
Repurposed Taproot data storage
The proposal was designed as a User-Activated Soft Fork (UASF) — it relied on node enforcement rather than miner hashpower majority . The mandatory signaling window ran from block 961,632 to 963,647. To lock in, BIP-110 required 55% of blocks (1,109 of 2,016) to signal support within a single difficulty retarget period, with activation at block 965,664 . If activated, restrictions would expire automatically after 52,416 blocks (roughly one year) .
Miner Support: Almost Zero
BIP-110 never achieved meaningful miner buy-in. The numbers tell the story clearly:
Metric
Value
Hashrate signaling before fork
~0.42%–2.64% of total network
Hashrate at fork moment
~2.53% of network
Blocks mined on fork chain
2 blocks
Network share of fork chain
Effectively 0.15% of hashpower
On August 1, 2026 — over a week before the split — on-chain tracking service Farside UK declared BIP-110 "mathematically finished," stating it could never reach its 55% threshold .
Network Impact
The split was brief and one-sided:
The main chain advanced from 961,632 to 961,690 while the fork stayed at 961,633 — a 57-block gap .
Only two blocks were mined on the forked chain in over eight hours .
A "silent miner boycott" effectively halted the enforcing chain, as miners refused to build on the minority branch .
99.85% of hashpower remained on the original chain .
Opposing Arguments
BIP-110 was highly divisive, with criticism centering on several key points:
Permissionless innovation: Opponents argued that banning Ordinals and inscriptions violated Bitcoin's ethos of permissionless use .
Economic consensus override: Critics said that using a UASF with negligible miner support was an end-run around the normal Bitcoin improvement process .
Censorship precedent: Restricting transaction data types at the consensus level could set a dangerous precedent for future content-based censorship .
No community consensus: The proposal was "not an approved Bitcoin upgrade," and prominent figures like Adam Back and Jameson Lopp warned of chain-split risks .
Price Reaction
Available reports do not detail a specific BTC price crash. The event was widely anticipated and the fork's failure was essentially preordained, so broader market impact appears to have been minimal. The most significant market reaction may have been the collapse in value of Ordinals-related assets and BRC-20 tokens on the forked chain, though specific price data is not covered in available sources.
Prospects for the Minority Chain
The minority chain has effectively no viable future:
Two blocks total — no sustained mining activity .
0.15% of network hashpower is far below the threshold needed to secure any blockchain against reorganization attacks .
Major exchanges had warned about replay attack risks and were unlikely to support the chain .
The fork was described as "dead on arrival," "dying with a whimper," and "BIP-110 forking itself into oblivion" .
Without a significant and sustained miner migration (which never materialized), the fork chain cannot produce blocks at a regular cadence and is functionally dead.
