March 10, 2026: Version 0.4.1 of the official activation client was formally released on GitHub. Dathon Ohm publicly announced the release on X on March 13.
March 31, 2026: Dathon Ohm published a project update on Delving Bitcoin and announced that two implementation pull requests had been submitted to Bitcoin Core. The relevant PRs were subsequently closed automatically and were not merged into Core.
June 25, 2026: BIP-110’s status was changed to Complete. This status only indicates that the author considers the specification complete and recommends its adoption. It does not mean that the Bitcoin network has accepted the proposal.
July 2026: The dispute intensified. Michael Saylor, Adam Back, PlanB, and others publicly opposed the proposal. OCEAN became the primary source of signaling blocks, but overall miner support remained low. OCEAN also upgraded its backend to separately record and distribute rewards from the two chains after the split. Ordinals supporter Leonidas, meanwhile, announced DOG Mode, which proposed relaxing node relay policies in the opposite direction from BIP-110.
August 9, 2026, Beijing time (August 8 UTC): The mandatory signaling period began at block 961,632. A non-signaling block mined by AntPool was accepted by the Bitcoin main chain but rejected by BIP-110 nodes. Miners using OCEAN then produced alternative blocks on the minority chain. The branch stopped advancing after producing the block at height 961,633.
August 9–10: Roughnecks, which mined the two blocks on the minority chain, announced that it would stop mining under the organization’s name and recommended that miners continuing to use the existing proof-of-work algorithm suspend their participation. Some supporters began discussing changing the branch’s PoW algorithm, but this would constitute another rule change outside the original proposal. Pull requests were also opened in the Bitcoin BIPs repository to change BIP-110’s status from Complete to Deployed, and then to Closed. As of publication, the relevant PRs had not been merged, and BIP-110’s official page still listed its status as Complete. Regardless of how the repository label is ultimately handled, it would not mean that BIP-110 had been activated on the Bitcoin mainnet.
What Are the Two Sides Actually Arguing About?
Supporters argue that miners collect a transaction fee only once, while every fully validating node must download and verify the corresponding block. Nodes that do not enable pruning must also store historical blocks indefinitely and may serve this data to other nodes. Large volumes of non-financial data also compete with payment transactions for block space, potentially raising the cost of ordinary transfers.
Dathon Ohm and Luke Dashjr therefore argue that users and node operators have the right to define the rules they are willing to accept through a user-activated soft fork, and that miner signaling is not the only determining factor. OCEAN’s preparations to account for and distribute rewards separately across the two chains also reflected its recognition that not all participants would automatically choose the same rules.
Opponents are not primarily debating whether Ordinals have value. Their central question is whether Bitcoin’s consensus rules should be changed to restrict an unpopular use case that currently complies with those rules and pays transaction fees.
Saylor’s repeated comments can be summarized in three points: Bitcoin cannot determine the purpose of data; the dispute should be addressed through the fee market and node and miner policies; and changing consensus rules in response to a short-term controversy could weaken the freedom to transact and Bitcoin’s long-term fee market while setting a precedent for excluding other legitimate uses. He compared consensus rules to a constitution and argued that BIP-110’s “solution is more dangerous than the problem itself.”
Adam Back described BIP-110 as an attempt to “regulate other people,” arguing that it conflicts with Bitcoin’s decentralized and permissionless principles. He also predicted in advance that the minority chain would stall because of its lack of hash power.
PlanB approached the issue from the perspective of bearer assets and historical precedent, arguing that supporters had failed to understand Bitcoin’s nature as a decentralized bearer asset and had not learned from the Bitcoin Cash fork.
Leonidas’ proposed DOG Mode represents the opposite end of the debate. Rather than modifying consensus, it would relax node relay policies by raising the standard transaction limit from 400,000 WU to 3,900,000 WU and lowering the dust limit to 1 sat. The proposal is intended to expand the relay capacity available to Ordinals, Runes, and other data-related transactions.
Because DOG Mode would operate only at the policy layer, it would theoretically not require a network-wide coordinated upgrade. However, when it was announced, the project had not yet published a code repository or formal release for public review.
What Happens Next?
Based on the outcome so far, BIP-110 has effectively failed as a Bitcoin consensus upgrade intended for network-wide adoption. The minority chain inherited the main chain’s mining difficulty of approximately 127.48 T but had only a tiny fraction of its hash power. Unless it suddenly attracts substantial miner support or adopts a different PoW algorithm, it is unlikely to complete the next 2,016-block difficulty adjustment, let alone reach the originally planned lock-in and activation heights.
Saylor estimated that approximately 99.85% of Bitcoin’s hash power remained on the main chain. He said that, assuming the minority chain had around 0.15% of the total hash power, completing its first difficulty adjustment could take approximately 25 years. This was Saylor’s personal estimate based on the assumed hash-rate ratio, not a direct measurement. However, Roughnecks’ subsequent decision to stop mining further reduced the likelihood that the branch would continue operating.
BIP-110’s failure does not mean the dispute is over. A more likely next step is that opponents of on-chain data will return to node relay policies, miner block templates, and more narrowly scoped technical proposals, while the Ordinals camp continues to promote more permissive relay initiatives such as DOG Mode.
If another consensus change is attempted in the future, its proponents will need to demonstrate more than a certain number of supporting nodes. They will also need to secure broad economic coordination among miners, exchanges, wallets, custodians, and users.
For ordinary holders, the main short-term risk is that the minority chain does not include built-in replay protection. Bitcoin developer Kevin Loaec and hardware wallet manufacturer Ledger have both warned that, while the same signed transactions remain valid on both chains, a transaction used to sell or transfer forked coins could be replayed on the Bitcoin mainnet, causing the corresponding BTC to be transferred as well. For users unfamiliar with coin-splitting procedures, the safest approach remains not to move or trade assets on the minority branch.
The dispute has also spilled over into Bitcoin’s development governance. F2Pool co-founder Wang Chun sharply criticized Luke Dashjr, while former Kraken marketing executive Dan Held argued that BIP-110 was flawed in both its technical design and game-theoretic incentives. He also criticized its supporters for promoting the proposal through emotional appeals and moral pressure.
BIP editor Murch also proposed removing Luke Dashjr from his role as a BIP editor. Murch alleged that Luke had attempted to publicly assign a BIP number before the proposal had been discussed on the mailing list and had merged an update PR only minutes after it was opened. On this basis, Murch argued that Luke’s use of his editorial privileges was inconsistent with established procedures.
Luke responded that the allegations were false and said he had consistently followed the BIP process for years. The PR seeking to remove him as an editor remains open and has not been merged.
BIP-110 ultimately looks more like a governance stress test. Nodes can, of course, choose to enforce their own rules, but whether a UASF can change Bitcoin depends on its ability to secure sufficiently broad economic support. Without that coordination, mandatory signaling does not automatically create consensus. It simply leads supporters onto an isolated chain.
Note: This article is provided solely as an informational summary and retrospective of the events described. It does not constitute investment, trading, or technical advice. Assets on a forked chain may be exposed to replay attacks, insufficient liquidity, and other technical and market risks. Readers should independently verify the relevant information and carefully assess the risks before taking any related action.
