On August 8, the Bitcoin network split at height #961,632. Over eight hours, the new branch mined two blocks, according to the BIP‑110 Situation Monitor.
The split was triggered by two blocks at the same height. AntPool mined #961,632 without signaling support for BIP‑110: the main chain accepted it, while nodes backing the proposal rejected it. They instead switched to an alternative that a miner named Roughnecks found at the same height via the Ocean pool. Both versions share a common ancestor but include different sets of transactions.
Looks like we’re wildcatting!
Those of you in the oil business know exactly what wildcatting means😻
Tick tock, next block⛏️ pic.twitter.com/r1e7vQrN4V
— Roughnecks (@Roughnecks110) August 8, 2026
By the morning of August 9, the lag had grown to 48 blocks. The main network reached #961,687, while the BIP-110 branch remained at #961,633.
The gap stems from difficulty parameters updated at block #961,632 to 127.48 trillion. The forked chain kept that value, but the shortage of hash power led to much longer block times.
The next scheduled adjustment comes after 2016 blocks, which at the current pace would take 350 days—versus 14 days on mainnet. The proposal is on a tight timeline: BIP-110’s rules will lock in only if the branch reaches #963,648, and data limits will activate at #965,664.
The initiative had little support to begin with. Two weeks before the soft fork, 51 out of 2016 blocks signaled for it—2.53% versus the required 55%. In early July, the figure was below 1%.
Bitcoin price
Bitcoin’s price did not react to the split. Over the past 24 hours, it fell 0.4%. At the time of writing, the asset trades around $64,800.
The proposal does not create a separate tradable coin. Whether the new coins will have a price depends on whether exchanges and other services support them.
The risk for holders remains. Both branches accept the same transactions, so an attacker could take a signed transfer on the new network and submit it to the main chain as well, taking a seller’s real bitcoins—something developer Kevin Loak had earlier warned about.
Community response
Supporters of the proposal did not concede defeat. Ocean CTO and Bitcoin Knots creator Luke Dashjr called reports of BIP‑110’s failure lies.
“Bad actors are once again spreading lies about the death of BIP‑110. BIP‑110 has not failed. Do not fall for their manipulation,” he wrote.
In another post, Dashjr said there was no counter‑fork to reject the initiative, so it remains “uncontested.” He called AntPool’s actions “an attack on Bitcoin.”
The proposal’s author, who goes by the pseudonym Dathon Ohm, addressed BIP‑110 supporters with thanks:
“Courage and honesty define the BIP‑110 movement, whereas our opponents are defined by fear and weakness.”
Some in the community interpreted the events as the start of open confrontation. One participant in the discussion, under the nickname Bruce, said the situation exposed “corporate capture of the network, institutional greed, and collusion among miners.” The user called for “a war to restore Bitcoin as sovereign money.”
The mask is completely off.
We now see the true state of Bitcoin: the corporate capture, the institutional greed, and the miner collusion. The enemies of decentralized money have finally shown their faces.
The war to restore Bitcoin as sovereign money has officially begun.…
— ₿ruce ⚡️#BIP-110 (@techexe) August 8, 2026
Opponents took the split as a definitive victory. Blockstream co‑founder Adam Back, who had warned for half a year that supporters would simply break away from the network, declared the dispute settled. He urged those “misled” by the proposal to study public analyses of what happened and return to work within the Bitcoin ecosystem.
Nakamoto CEO David Bailey was more blunt, characterizing the soft fork as a Sybil attack:
“Officially: BIP‑110 became the most unpopular, most incoherent, and most insignificant soft fork of all attempts to activate.”
In February, Back called BIP‑110 an attack on the reputation of digital gold and a “lynch mob.”
