Bitcoin BIP-110 Dispute Triggers Chain Split
Bitcoin has split into competing chains after nodes enforcing BIP-110 rejected blocks that did not signal support for the controversial proposal, while the main network continued to pull ahead.
Bitcoin’s long-running debate over how its block space should be used has escalated into an actual chain split. On Aug. 8, nodes enforcing BIP-110 began rejecting blocks that did not signal support for the proposal, leaving supporters on a minority chain with significantly less mining power.
The development turns a dispute over Bitcoin’s treatment of non-financial data into a broader test of network coordination, consensus rules and miner support.
BIP-110 Chain Falls Behind the Main Network
The split occurred at block 961,632, when BIP-110-enforcing nodes rejected a block mined by AntPool because it did not signal support for the proposal.
The main Bitcoin network accepted the AntPool block, while BIP-110 nodes instead followed an alternative block produced through Ocean by the miner Roughnecks.
Both competing blocks were built on block 961,631, but contained different transaction sets. The alternative chain subsequently produced only one more block, reaching 961,633, before stalling.
Meanwhile, the main Bitcoin chain continued producing blocks. The widening difference in chain height indicates that BIP-110 supporters currently lack sufficient mining power to maintain their branch at Bitcoin’s normal pace.
At the time of publication, Bitcoin was trading around $64,900, with no obvious price reaction to the split, according to Crypto Pulse Monitor.
BIP-110 Has Limited Miner Support
The proposed rule had received only a small share of miner signaling before its mandatory enforcement period began at block 961,632.
BIP-110 requires 55% of blocks in a 2,016-block period to signal support for early lock-in. That threshold was not reached. Once mandatory enforcement began, however, nodes running BIP-110 started rejecting blocks without the required signal.
Under the proposal’s schedule, the rules would lock in no later than block 963,648 and become active at block 965,664. Reaching those heights on the minority chain would require substantially more mining support than it currently has.
BIP-110 would restrict several forms of non-financial data storage by introducing size limits for certain transaction data fields and restricting some uses of Taproot functionality.
The proposal does not itself create a separately traded asset. Any economic value associated with a persistent minority chain would instead depend on continued mining, as well as support from exchanges, wallets and other infrastructure.
From Block-Space Debate to Consensus Split
The conflict behind BIP-110 has been developing for years.
At its center is the question of whether Bitcoin’s block space should be available for non-financial data, including Ordinals inscriptions, as long as users follow the existing rules and pay the required fees.
Supporters of tighter restrictions argue that persistent data can increase blockchain size, place additional burdens on node operators and compete with monetary transactions. Opponents favor a more neutral approach to valid transactions.
The debate intensified following the Bitcoin Core v30 release in October 2025, which removed the previous 83-byte default relay limit for OP_RETURN outputs. BIP-110 subsequently sought to address data storage through consensus rules rather than default transaction-relay policy.
OP_RETURN outputs allow users to include arbitrary data in Bitcoin transactions without creating a spendable output. They have been used for purposes including metadata, digital records and inscriptions.
What Happens to BTC Holders?
BIP-110 is classified as a temporary Bitcoin soft fork, meaning it would add new consensus restrictions while retaining the existing chain history.
If the split continues, BTC holders at the time of the fork have corresponding UTXOs on both chains because both branches share the same transaction history through block 961,631. This does not create additional BTC on the original Bitcoin network; assets on the minority chain would represent a separate asset whose value depends on its continued operation and adoption.
For users, however, the more immediate issue is transaction safety. If the chains lack effective replay protection, a transaction submitted on one chain could potentially also be valid on the other.
The BIP-110 split therefore matters beyond the debate over inscriptions. It demonstrates how a contentious consensus change can produce a separate chain when enforcing nodes do not have corresponding support from the majority of miners, highlighting the difficult balance between Bitcoin’s decentralized governance, block-space policy and network coordination.
Learn More with CryptoPulse.News
- What is Bitcoin and Why It Matters Today
- What Is Blockchain Technology and How It Works
- How to Read Crypto News and Understand Market Impact
