BIP-110 stalls after two blocks as Bitcoin's quiet governance fight grinds on

Two blocks, then a widening gap. That is the scoreboard for BIP-110, the user-activated soft fork that entered mandatory signalling on 8 August 2026, mined its first two blocks under Bitcoin's full mining difficulty the following day, and then stalled, with hours-long intervals between proposed blocks as supporting hashpower failed to keep pace.

The episode is the most concrete data point yet in a governance drama that has played out across the summer of 2026 over who gets to define what belongs on the Bitcoin blockchain. A breakaway chain that, for now, still accepts the same transactions as the chain it tried to leave: technically live, economically marginal, and exactly the configuration that one developer flagged as risky for ordinary holders if replay protection is not in place.

What BIP-110 actually did

BIP-110 is a proposal to filter certain non-financial data transactions, the inscriptions and data-carrier outputs that have drawn criticism from parts of the developer community for bloating the blockchain. Block 961,632 marked the moment the new rules began mandatory signalling, according to CoinDesk's coverage on 8 August, with less than 3% of miner support publicly registered for the change at that milestone.

That low signalling figure was always expected. Cointelegraph reported on 8 August that the deployment milestone was designed to test whether the change could proceed amid limited miner signalling, and that a hard-fork fallback was under discussion if the soft fork approach stalls. By the time the breakaway chain started mining on 9 August, the visible result was the one the headlines now describe. Cointelegraph's 9 August piece carries the headline "BIP-110 Bitcoin branch stalls after two blocks as gap widens," and CoinDesk's same-day report describes the breakaway chain as having "mines two blocks, then stops," while adding that both chains "still accept the same transactions."

CoinDesk's 9 August piece states the breakaway chain "inherited bitcoin's mining difficulty with only a tiny share of hashpower, leaving blocks hours apart while both chains still accept the same transactions." The piece as cited does not separately attribute the difficulty parameter or the test-of-hashpower framing to a source; it reports the observed inheritance and the observed gap. Monexus analysis: reading the two-block scoreboard alongside the reported share of hashpower makes the inheritance the binding constraint, rather than a separate difficulty calibration.

The replay risk the developer flagged

The economic question is separate from the mining question. CoinDesk reported on 8 August, under the headline "Bitcoin holders risk losing real BTC if they sell coins from BIP-110 fork, says developer," that if a minority chain appears, buyers could replay signed fork-coin sales on bitcoin itself, with the developer's recommendation framed in that piece as doing nothing until the chains can be cleanly separated. The CoinDesk article does not name the developer in the cited excerpt; the available source items do not specify the developer's identity or institutional role beyond the word "developer" itself.

The risk applies most acutely to anyone moving coins through venues that have not paused deposits or implemented explicit replay protection. It is the same class of concern that defined the 2017 Bitcoin Cash split, though the magnitudes differ: BIP-110's support is measured in low single-digit percentages of hashpower, not the meaningful minority that defined the BCH fork. The smaller the minority chain, the smaller the live surface, but also the easier it is for that surface to be invisible to ordinary users who simply see a coin balance and assume it is the one they intend.

The market barely flinched

The price tape read the news with restraint. Bitcoin slipped below $65,000 on 9 August, according to Investing.com, with ETF inflows described in that piece as offsetting the fork-related noise. The day before, the same outlet had Bitcoin rising toward $65,000 as fresh security risks hit infrastructure. The infrastructure risk referenced there is a separate story from the fork: Moneyweb reported on 9 August that a software vulnerability allowed hackers to steal Bitcoin from affected hardware wallets, reigniting debate over self-custody. The available source items do not specify which hardware-wallet product was affected or which supply-chain link the vulnerability sat in.

The pattern fits the one CoinDesk's daybook identified on 7 August: volatility has nearly disappeared, the risk has not. Bitcoin price action stayed compressed in a divergence from stocks and gold while US PMI data sparked fresh talk of stagflation, per Cointelegraph's 6 August markets piece, and Bitcoin was stalling at $64,000 on 7 August ahead of US payrolls data, according to Investing.com.

Monexus assessment: with the fork producing two blocks under the reported hashpower share and price action staying compressed, the tape so far treats BIP-110 as a curiosity rather than a catalyst. The fork's failure to attract sustained hashpower reduces the practical replay surface, which in turn reduces the operational reasons for exchanges and traders to act. That is the read the price chart appears to be confirming; the available source items do not specify whether that read will hold if hashpower support or block production changes.

Who sets the rules

Strip the price and the technical drama away and the story is about who gets to set the rules of Bitcoin. BIP-110's design route, activation through nodes that enforce the new rules regardless of miner signalling, is itself a statement that the network's policy should be decided by the people who run the validating infrastructure, not by the people who supply the electricity. CoinDesk's 7 August explainer, headlined "Why Bitcoin's BIP-110 refuses to die despite near-zero miner support," captures the logic: "BIP-110 has attracted only a sliver of miner support, yet its user-activated design means the proposal continues toward its activation date and (most likely) beyond."

The minority of miners who did point hashpower at the fork chain made the opposite statement, that policy without their consent is policy without effect. Monexus analysis: on the evidence available, neither side has won decisively. The fork chain produced two blocks and stalled. The main chain accepted the same transactions, including the data-carrier outputs BIP-110 was designed to filter, because the minority chain did not have the hashpower to orphan them. The proposal's authors can point to a chain that ran, briefly, under their rules. The available source items do not specify how many users, exchanges, or wallets are transacting on the breakaway chain, so the assertion that "no one is using" it cannot be sourced; only that the chain produced two blocks in roughly the period covered by the cited coverage, and that the gap widened.

What to watch next

The fork has not been formally abandoned. The user-activated design, per CoinDesk's explainer, means the proposal continues toward its activation date and, most likely, beyond. The hard-fork fallback that has been discussed would convert the question from a node-level dispute into a full network split, with all the replay-protection requirements that implies. If hashpower support remains below 3% through the activation window, the most likely outcome is that BIP-110 lives on as a policy statement rather than a working chain, on the read of the available source items.

For ordinary holders, the practical posture has not changed since CoinDesk's 8 August developer warning: do not move coins between chains without explicit replay protection in place. For exchanges, the playbook is the one used during past contentious forks: pause deposits, surface warnings, wait for the chains to diverge cleanly. For traders, the price chart has delivered its verdict so far: this fork is a footnote, not a market-moving event, at least until evidence changes.

Desk note: Monexus framed BIP-110 as a governance dispute with operational consequences, not as a market story. The wire coverage has leaned into the technical drama; we leaned into the structural question of who sets Bitcoin's rules and what users should do in the meantime.

Wire provenance

This editorial synthesis draws on the following public wire/social posts:

• https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-bip-110-branch-stalls-miner-support
• https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2026/08/09/controversial-bitcoin-fork-bip-110-mines-two-blocks-then-stops
• https://www.investing.com/news/cryptocurrency-news/bitcoin-slips-below-65000-as-etf-inflows-offset-fork-concerns-4847718
• https://www.moneyweb.co.za/moneyweb-crypto/bitcoin/hack-of-supposedly-safe-bitcoin-tool-tries-faith-of-the-devoted/
• https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-bip-110-mandatory-signaling
• https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2026/08/07/frame-bitcoin-s-bip-110-enters-mandatory-signaling-with-less-than-3-miner-support
• https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2026/08/08/bitcoin-holders-risk-losing-real-btc-if-they-sell-coins-from-bip-110-fork-says-developer
• https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2026/08/06/why-bitcoin-s-bip-110-refuses-to-die-despite-near-zero-miner-support
• https://www.coindesk.com/daybook-us/2026/08/07/bitcoin-s-volatility-has-nearly-disappeared-the-risk-hasn-t
• https://cointelegraph.com/markets/bitcoin-price-compresses-as-us-pmi-data-brings-new-stagflation-warning
• https://www.investing.com/news/cryptocurrency-news/bitcoin-rises-toward-65000-as-fresh-security-risks-hit-infrastructure-4847628
• https://www.investing.com/news/cryptocurrency-news/bitcoin-stalls-at-64k-as-payrolls-test-looms-4845206