Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 has failed to activate after receiving only around 2.5% support from miners, bringing one of Bitcoin’s most divisive recent governance battles to a dramatic conclusion.
The proposal sought to temporarily restrict several methods used to store non-financial data on Bitcoin, including techniques associated with inscriptions and other arbitrary blockchain data.
BIP-110 reached its activation deadline on August 8, but miner signaling remained far below the level required for meaningful adoption. Nodes configured to enforce the proposal nevertheless separated from Bitcoin’s main network at block 961,632.
The resulting minority chain quickly stalled because it inherited Bitcoin’s mining difficulty while attracting less than 3% of the network’s total hash power.
Bitcoin’s main chain, meanwhile, continued operating normally.
Supporters Claim Bitcoin Has Been “Captured”
Some BIP-110 supporters see the proposal’s failure as evidence that large mining pools now wield too much influence over Bitcoin.
One of the most vocal proponents, known as Bitcoin Mechanic, argued that the episode undermined his long-held belief that independent node operators ultimately determine Bitcoin’s consensus rules.
He accused major mining pools of effectively forming a centralized cartel capable of blocking protocol changes they oppose.
His criticism focuses on the relationship between nodes and miners. Full nodes can choose which consensus rules they recognize, but miners still provide the proof-of-work required to keep a particular chain producing blocks.
Without enough mining support, nodes enforcing BIP-110 found themselves following a network that could barely produce new blocks.
BIP-110 Chain Grinds to a Halt
The technical consequences became apparent immediately after the split. BIP-110 nodes rejected blocks from Bitcoin’s dominant chain that violated their newly enforced rules, effectively isolating themselves.
Bitcoin Mechanic reported that his own infrastructure became stuck around block 961,633.
With such a small percentage of global hash power supporting the alternative chain, estimates suggested individual blocks could take more than 30 hours to produce under the existing proof-of-work system.
Bitcoin’s difficulty adjustment mechanism makes the situation even more challenging. Because the minority chain inherited the main network’s difficulty, it cannot simply continue producing blocks normally with dramatically less computational power.
Some BIP-110 supporters are therefore discussing a hard fork that would introduce an entirely new proof-of-work algorithm, potentially removing the advantage held by existing Bitcoin ASIC miners.
Bitcoin Mechanic has expressed support for such a move and indicated he could wait for a future Bitcoin Knots implementation capable of restoring block production through a different mining algorithm.
Critics Say Bitcoin Worked Exactly as Intended
Opponents of BIP-110 interpret the same events very differently. Rather than demonstrating centralized capture, they argue the failed activation proves Bitcoin remains highly resistant to controversial protocol changes.
Cysic founder and CEO Leo Fan argued that power within Bitcoin remains distributed between different groups.
He identified BIP-110’s mandatory activation mechanism as a fundamental weakness. With support remaining in the low single digits, automatically enforcing the rules effectively guaranteed that participating nodes would separate from the dominant network.
His argument is that activation mechanisms should demonstrate an existing consensus rather than attempt to create one.
Major mining pools including Foundry, AntPool, ViaBTC and F2Pool did not support BIP-110, leaving the proposal far short of the backing needed to challenge the established chain.
Bitcoin Governance Debate Is Far From Over
BIP-110’s failure has reopened a fundamental question about who ultimately controls Bitcoin: nodes, miners, developers, businesses or economic users.
Supporters of the proposal argue that concentrated mining power threatens node sovereignty and Bitcoin’s decentralized principles. Critics counter that miners refusing to support an unpopular rule change is itself part of decentralized consensus.
The stalled minority chain also demonstrates the economic difficulty of forcing a contentious Bitcoin fork. Nodes can reject the dominant chain, but maintaining a viable alternative requires miners, exchanges, custodians and users to follow them.
For now, the main Bitcoin network continues without BIP-110.
However, discussion of changing the minority chain’s mining algorithm suggests the dispute may evolve rather than disappear. What began as a disagreement over non-financial blockchain data and inscriptions has become a much broader ideological fight over Bitcoin governance, mining concentration and the meaning of decentralization.
