BlockOps Mining · Updated October 8, 2026
Written before the August 2026 activation window, and kept here as a record of where things stood. For what actually happened, see our follow-up on how the split chain stalled.
Key Takeaways
1
BIP-110 was a proposed one-year rule change that would sharply limit how much non-payment data, meaning images, tokens and collectibles like Ordinals and Runes, could be stuffed into bitcoin transactions.
[1]
2
Miner support was effectively zero. Signaling never topped roughly 1%, no major pool backed it, and Michael Saylor and Adam Back both opposed it.
[2]
3
It used a 55% threshold, not the traditional 95%. As a user-activated soft fork, nodes running the software would enforce the rule whether miners agreed or not.
[2]
4
At that level of support, the realistic outcomes were a quiet failure or a small minority chain split, with the chain most miners and exchanges follow continuing uninterrupted.
[4]
Want a host that tracks protocol risk for you?
See current inventory and rates, or ask the team how we handle events like this.
Rates as low as $0.07/kWh pass-through, curtailment capped at 120 hrs/yr, you keep title.
What was BIP-110 trying to do?
Short answer
Bitcoin’s blocks are like a shared notebook meant for recording payments. Some people started gluing pictures and collectibles into it. BIP-110 was a proposed rule that said money notes only, for one year. The catch: miners get paid extra for the pictures, so almost none of them wanted the rule.
BIP-110, the Reduced Data Temporary Soft Fork
A proposal to tighten the paths used to store non-financial data on bitcoin for one year. Its unusual feature was activation: instead of the traditional 95% miner approval, it used a user-activated soft fork with a 55% signaling threshold.
Every few years bitcoin fights over what block space is for. BIP-110 was this cycle’s version, and a miner’s pool signaling stance, fee revenue and payout continuity all sat downstream of how it resolved. [1]
What was the argument on each side?
Supporters said data storage crowds out payments, burdens node operators, and drifts bitcoin from money toward a database. Luke Dashjr put it bluntly: “If BIP110 fails, Bitcoin fails with it.” Backers cited BIP-148 in 2017, when user pressure helped force SegWit through despite miner resistance. [3]
Opponents said the cure was worse than the illness, and in some cases argued that the fees for embedding data into blocks were already curbing any spam problem. Michael Saylor argued it “turns a spam dispute into a consensus change that would invalidate some currently valid, fee-paying transactions.” [2]
There was also a plain economic problem. Inscriptions pay real fees, and post-halving, few pools were going to vote to shrink their own revenue.
How could a proposal with no miner support have passed?
Short answer
A user-activated soft fork does not need miners to like it. It needs miners to fear being orphaned. If enough exchanges, custodians and economic nodes ran the software, non-signaling blocks would be rejected by the money side of the network, and mining them becomes unprofitable.
That creates a tipping-point game. No pool wants to signal first, but if one major pool flips, orphan risk shifts onto the holdouts and 55% can arrive fast. That is roughly how BIP-148 pressured miners into SegWit in 2017. [3]
The difference in 2026 was that economic adoption sat in the low single digits, so the threat was never credible. The thing to watch in any fork fight is node counts, not announcements. As of mid-July 2026 signaling sat near zero with F2Pool refusing outright, against a voluntary lock-in deadline at block 961,542 and mandatory signaling from block 961,632. [2] [4]
What actually happened is covered in our follow-up: BIP-110 is dead.
What should miners have done?
Not panic, but be deliberate. Know what your pool signals, because your hashrate is a vote whether you cast it consciously or not. And if a minority chain splits off, hold off transacting until replay risk is clear.
Consensus fights come and go. Uptime and payouts are what compound. If you need to move hashrate quickly when something like this happens, our guide to switching pools covers the mechanics.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did BIP-110 activate in August 2026?
Not on the main chain. It needed 55% miner signaling and never exceeded about 1%. A separate chain split off, produced two blocks, and stalled.
What happens to my miners if a chain split occurs?
If your pool follows the majority chain, effectively nothing. The risk sits with anyone on the minority chain.
Does my hosting provider decide what my hashrate signals?
No, your pool does. But a good host flags events like this and helps you switch pools fast. BlockOps handles pool configuration as part of turnkey setup.
What is the difference between a UASF and a regular soft fork?
A traditional soft fork activates when a supermajority of miners signal for it, typically 95%. A user-activated soft fork is enforced by economic nodes regardless of miner support, which is why BIP-110 used a 55% threshold instead.
What is replay risk?
During a chain split, a transaction broadcast on one chain can sometimes be copied onto the other. If the split chain lacks replay protection, that can move coins you did not intend to move, which is why waiting until the situation is clear is the safe default.
Uptime and payouts are what compound.
Open the marketplace for current inventory and rates, or get the team on a call.
Rates as low as $0.07/kWh pass-through, curtailment capped at 120 hrs/yr, you keep title.
