The unsuccessful implementation of the BIP-110 soft fork serves as a clear example of why it’s nearly impossible to recreate the conditions under which the first cryptocurrency emerged. This opinion was expressed by Giacomo Zucco, director of Plan B Network, on The Starting Block podcast.
Why Bitcoin BIP-110 failed — ft Giacomo Zucco https://t.co/fomrEgb4Ok
— The Block (@TheBlockCo) August 12, 2026
The proposal aimed to change consensus rules to combat transactions its supporters deemed “spam.” However, it failed to gain broad support, leading nodes that adopted the new rules to split from the main network into a separate branch with a minor share of the hash rate.
One of the most active proponents of BIP-110, developer Luke Dashjr, attempted to maintain the viability of the new blockchain, including by changing the PoW. According to Zucco, the programmer planned to select a new algorithm randomly based on a block hash in Testnet4. However, miners began adjusting blocks to fit the required symbol, forcing the experiment to be halted and restarted.
“All control was concentrated in one person. He was literally giving commands through Discord — it’s an absolute concentration of centralization, and it clearly demonstrates that recreating Bitcoin honestly today is simply impossible,” said the director of Plan B Network.
He contrasted the situation with the early years of digital gold. Zucco noted that back then, the network developed without the current attention from authorities, speculators, and other parties interested in gaining advantages.
“Bitcoin was created and maintained for several years outside the view of markets, governments, state agencies, intentional interference attempts, speculators, excessive speculators, players, trolls, and people who just want to disrupt the process for fun,” he explained.
Zucco referred to this combination of circumstances as Bitcoin’s “immaculate conception” — a scenario that is no longer possible today, he emphasized.
“Moral Panic”
The director of Plan B described BIP-110 as a “very complex social phenomenon” involving several internal community conflicts:
- debates over the nature of “spam”;
- issues surrounding Bitcoin Core;
- the distribution of roles between nodes and miners.
Zucco acknowledged that some of the discussions were beneficial. In particular, he called the question of the permissibility of arbitrary data in the blockchain healthy and admitted that certain aspects of Bitcoin Core governance indeed deserve criticism.
However, he criticized the argument for urgent changes due to the potential for illegal content on the network and the legal risks for node operators:
“This created a false sense of emergency […] and led people to rush to do what supposedly needs to be done right now.”
According to him, such rhetoric shifts the technical or economic discussion to another level, where calls to “save Bitcoin at the cost of concessions” signal an imminent fork and replace rational argumentation with panic-driven sentiments.
Zucco Criticizes Dashjr’s Removal
Amid the conflict over BIP-110, developers proposed removing Dashjr from his position as Bitcoin proposal editor. On August 11, he was dismissed from this role for overstepping his authority. The director of Plan B criticized the decision, calling it “the wrong move at the wrong time.”
“It doesn’t provide any substantial or meaningful effect and looks like retribution. Retribution for being wrong,” the expert said.
In his view, the removal will only strengthen the arguments of BIP-110 supporters who believe the development process of the first cryptocurrency is centralized.
Earlier, in February, cypherpunk Adam Back called the proposal an attack on the reputation of digital gold and a “lynch mob.”
