Bitcoin miners ignored a new rule push. Now the smaller chain is stuck.
BIP-110 needed miners to signal during its mandatory window. Instead, the chain enforcing that rule is showing what weak support looks like in public.
CryptoVibe Desk · bitcoin · bip-110 · miners
- →BIP-110's enforcing Bitcoin branch reportedly stalled at block 961,633 while the dominant chain kept adding blocks.
- →The issue is miner non-signaling: enforcing nodes reject blocks without bit 4, so low support turns into a live split.
- →Watch the mandatory window through block 963,647. A real comeback needs sustained bit-4 blocks, not one lucky block.
- BIP-110 → BIP-110 is a Bitcoin proposal to temporarily limit some large data fields inside transactions.
- soft fork → A soft fork is a rule change where stricter nodes reject blocks that older nodes may still accept.
- version bit → A version bit is a small block-header signal miners use to show support for a proposed Bitcoin rule change.
Bitcoin's BIP-110 branch reportedly stopped at block 961,633. CryptoSlate reported the dominant Bitcoin chain at 961,690 as of Aug. 9, 2026. That is a 57-block gap in that snapshot, while crypto.news reported a different gap. Treat the exact gap as moving data.
The mechanism is simple. During blocks 961,632 through 963,647, BIP-110 enforcing nodes require miners to signal version bit 4. If a block doesn't signal, enforcing nodes reject it. The code path turns miner silence into chain separation.
And that's the catch. BIP-110 is not behaving like a near-term Bitcoin rule change. It is behaving like a live minority-chain test. CryptoSlate said 59 sampled dominant-chain blocks lacked the bit-4 signal as of its Aug. 9 snapshot.
BIP-110 needs 1,109 of 2,016 blocks to lock in. That is 55%, according to the specification. That is a low threshold compared with many Bitcoin activation debates. But low is not zero. If miners don't set the bit, enforcing nodes just strand themselves.
At the rule level, BIP-110 would restrict several arbitrary-data paths in Bitcoin transactions. Existing coins created before activation would be grandfathered, according to the spec. That design tries to avoid freezing old UTXOs.
If you're running Bitcoin infrastructure, this is not abstract governance drama. Your node policy decides which history you follow during a split. Read the block behavior, not the thread. Miner attribution is also messy, because explorer labels use coinbase data and don't prove formal pool policy.
The next question is not whether BIP-110 has an argument. It does. The question is whether the enforcing branch can produce blocks at all.
BIP-110's backers turned a mandatory-signaling window into a brittle live fork by assuming miners would follow bit 4 without visible support.
Before block 963,647, watch whether the enforcing branch closes the gap to under 10 blocks with repeated bit-4 blocks.
Primary links and supporting reads used by the desk for this story.
Forward this.
