Bitcoin Improvement Proposal : BIP-110 Revival Push Brings Chain-Split and Replay Risks Back into Focus

A planned revival of the stalled Bitcoin (BTC) network focused BIP-110 minority chain is once again drawing attention to longstanding risks tied to contentious Bitcoin forks, including chain splits and the absence of replay protection. BIP-110, known formally as the Reduced Data Temporary Softfork, aimed to impose temporary consensus limits on arbitrary non-financial data in Bitcoin transactions.

Supporters positioned the change as a way to reduce what they viewed as spam—such as Ordinals-style inscriptions—and to re-emphasize Bitcoin’s role as money.

The proposal used a relatively low 55 percent miner-signaling threshold.

Actual support stayed far lower, reaching only about 2.5 percent in the critical period.

On August 8, 2026, at block 961,632, nodes enforcing the proposal began rejecting blocks that did not signal support.

GM Roughnecks!

Bitcoin has stalled on block 961633 because some miners have decided to fork themselves off the network by mining on an invalid chain.

Meanwhile, Bitcoin continues without them.

Since our announcement on Saturday night that we're pausing operations, we have been…

— Roughnecks (@Roughnecks110) August 10, 2026

This created a chain split.

A small mining group called Roughnecks produced the first two blocks on the minority branch.

Progress then stopped. The main Bitcoin chain continued producing blocks at its normal pace and quickly pulled far ahead.

Because the breakaway chain inherited the full network difficulty while controlling only a tiny fraction of hashrate, further blocks became extremely costly and slow to produce.

After briefly suspending operations and advising others to pause, Roughnecks announced it would resume mining from the stalled tip at height 961,633.

The group stated that it would continue until a “sensible” proof-of-work change could be introduced, arguing that the dominant mining pools had effectively left the network.

A PoW switch—potentially to an algorithm such as BLAKE2b—would make existing SHA-256 ASIC hardware incompatible, effectively turning the minority chain into a separate cryptocurrency with its own mining ecosystem.

This attempt to keep the stalled branch alive has brought an older hazard back into focus.

Without replay protection, a transaction broadcast on one chain can remain valid on the other.

Users who move funds during a split risk unintended transfers or double-spend complications.

Custodial holdings on exchanges or in ETFs generally face lower exposure, but self-custody users must remain cautious until the situation stabilizes.

The episode also revives familiar governance questions about whether miners, node operators, or economic majorities ultimately determine Bitcoin’s rules, and how difficult it is for a minority fork to survive against overwhelming hashrate.

Observers have noted that the initial outcome largely followed Bitcoin’s design: the proposal was free to fork, yet the bulk of the network was free not to follow.

Estimates placed roughly 99.85 percent of hashrate on the primary chain.

Critics of BIP-110 had previously warned that its activation parameters raised the likelihood of precisely this kind of persistent divergence.

Whether resumed mining and a possible PoW change attract meaningful support remains unclear.

The minority chain still lacks exchange listings, liquidity, and broad infrastructure. Even so, the effort demonstrates that unsuccessful upgrade campaigns can leave residual technical and coordination risks that reappear when backers refuse to abandon the branch.