BIP-110 Backers Pivot to PoW Change and Miner Removal After Fork Failure

Woofun AI reports that the BIP-110 revival narrative has shifted from technical implementation to a fundamental conflict over network governance, with key stakeholders including Dathon Ohm, Dashjr, and Roughnecks now engaged in a high-stakes dispute over the future of Bitcoin. The core event anchor is no longer the soft fork itself, but the strategic pivot by its backers to alter the protocol's foundational mechanics in response to a decisive rejection by the mining majority. This development marks a significant escalation in the ongoing debate regarding who holds the authority to define the rules of the Bitcoin network, moving beyond simple feature adoption into a contest of jurisdiction and control.

The technical failure of the weekend split was stark, with the proposal failing to secure the necessary 55% miner signaling required for activation. The minority chain, which was intended to enforce restrictions on arbitrary data, produced only two blocks before stalling completely at height 961,633. This outcome left the soft fork stranded on a branch that lacked the computational weight to compete with the dominant network. The inability to gather sufficient support highlighted a deep divergence in priorities between the proposal's authors and the entities responsible for securing the network, resulting in a clear rejection of the BIP-110 parameters by the mining majority.

Structurally, the fallout extended beyond the blockchain into the realm of governance, igniting a dispute over BIP editorship and process violations. Murch accused Dashjr of attempting to assign the proposal a number before the usual mailing-list discussion had taken place, alleging a bypass of standard community protocols.

Furthermore, Murch noted that Dashjr merged an update within minutes of a related pull request being opened, specifically GitHub pull request 2248, which remained open on Monday. Antoine Riard joined the criticism, stating that Dashjr should step aside, at least temporarily, from his editorial role.

However, Riard also warned that the BIP process does not provide a clear procedure for forcibly removing an editor, leaving developers to debate Dashjr's conduct and how such a decision should be made without established precedent.

Woofun AI data shows that a more critical variable is the accusation leveled against miners by Dathon Ohm, the proposal's author, who claimed that large mining pools were colluding to turn Bitcoin into a "toxic data dumping ground." Ohm argued that these entities were mining blocks rejected by BIP-110 nodes, thereby undermining the integrity of the network. In response to this perceived threat, supporters announced they were working on a proof-of-work change intended to "fire the miners" who opposed the proposal. Ohm stated, "There's just a tiny few bad actors attacking it. PoW change eliminates their threat." This radical suggestion to alter the consensus mechanism to exclude specific participants represents a significant departure from traditional Bitcoin governance norms, framing the conflict as a battle against 'bad actors' rather than a difference of opinion.

Notably, Roughnecks, the pseudonymous mining group that found both blocks on the BIP-110 branch, executed a strategic reversal in its position. Previously, Roughnecks had advised other BIP-110 miners to pause, stating that mining under the existing proof-of-work setup was largely wasteful. Now, however, the group says it intends to keep that chain alive while such a change is considered. It claimed miners on the dominant chain had "forked themselves off the network" and described Bitcoin Knots-RDTS as Bitcoin's reference client, a characterization rejected by opponents of BIP-110. The reversal means the minority branch could begin producing blocks again, though it still carries Bitcoin's existing difficulty level and has only a fraction of the computing power securing the dominant network, leaving its long-term viability uncertain.

Dashjr also rejected the push to remove him as a BIP editor, calling Murch's accusations false and asserting that he had followed the BIP process consistently for years. He countered that Murch should be removed instead, further entrenching the division within the community. The result leaves BIP-110 in an unusual position, where its weekend activation failed to win over miners, and its branch stalled after two blocks. Yet, its supporters are now trying to revive that chain while laying the groundwork for a proof-of-work change that could turn a failed soft-fork campaign into a broader fight over who gets to define Bitcoin's rules.