Crypto加密$BTC

BIP-110 Bitcoin branch stalls after two blocks as gap widens

Mining consensus, the mechanism that ultimately arbitrates every Bitcoin upgrade, has turned against BIP-110. The enforcing fork, which requires miners to signal in favor of the proposal, has stalled at just two blocks produced…

By Sofia Almeida·August 9, 2026·二〇二六年八月九日·2 min read

Key takeaways

  • Bitcoin's mining consensus has turned against BIP-110, whose enforcing fork has stalled at just two blocks produced.
  • The enforcing fork is running at Bitcoin's full mining difficulty, forcing its miners to compete against the entire network's hashpower and making each block far harder to find.
  • The gap between the enforcing fork and the main $BTC chain is widening because every block the main chain adds pushes the fork one block further behind.
  • Mandatory signaling is proceeding, but miners can signal support while still directing hardware to the more profitable difficulty-adjusted main chain, leaving the fork without needed block production.
  • The stalled fork does not threaten the main network and its path forward depends on persuading miners whose hashpower is currently going to the main chain.

Mining consensus, the mechanism that ultimately arbitrates every Bitcoin upgrade, has turned against BIP-110. The enforcing fork, which requires miners to signal in favor of the proposal, has stalled at just two blocks produced while the distance between that chain and the main $BTC network continues to grow. Mandatory signaling is moving forward, but the hashpower needed to sustain the fork has not materialized.

How the stall registers on-chain

The enforcing fork is running at Bitcoin's full mining difficulty. That means the miners committed to the branch are competing against the full weight of the entire network, making each new block far harder to find than it would be on a chain that had adjusted its difficulty downward. Two blocks in, no further progress has followed. The chain is not advancing.

The on-chain picture is unambiguous. A fork that cannot attract enough hashpower to regularly extend its chain does not threaten the main network. It simply stalls. The gap widening is arithmetic: every block the main chain adds puts the enforcing fork one block further behind, and nothing in the current signaling environment suggests that trajectory is about to reverse.

What the miner signaling picture shows

Mandatory signaling is proceeding. But signaling and actual block production are two different things. A miner can broadcast support for new rules and still direct its hardware toward the more profitable, difficulty-adjusted main chain. That choice, made across enough mining operations, is what leaves the enforcing fork without the block production it requires.

The hashpower shortfall is the clearest available read-through. Without a significant shift in miner commitment, the enforcing fork will remain stuck at full difficulty, unable to generate the sustained chain extension it needs. The gap does not close on its own.

The sector read-through for $BTC

Bitcoin upgrade cycles resolve not by announcement but by economics. Miners follow block rewards, and the main $BTC chain, with its full difficulty-adjusted economics, remains the more attractive target for the network's hashpower. BIP-110's enforcing fork, stuck at two blocks with a widening gap, is a direct reflection of where that hashpower is going today. The proposal's path forward runs through the miners it has not yet persuaded, and the on-chain data shows no sign yet of that changing.

Related reading

Source · 來源

cointelegraph.com

Share · 分享

Frequently asked

Why has the BIP-110 enforcing fork stalled at two blocks?

It is running at Bitcoin's full mining difficulty, so its miners compete against the entire network's hashpower, and it has not attracted enough committed hashpower to regularly extend the chain.

Does the enforcing fork threaten the main Bitcoin network?

No; a fork that cannot attract enough hashpower to regularly extend its chain does not threaten the main network and simply stalls.

What is the difference between miner signaling and block production here?

A miner can broadcast support for the new rules while still directing its hardware to the more profitable, difficulty-adjusted main chain, so mandatory signaling can proceed even as the fork lacks actual block production.

What would it take for the BIP-110 fork to advance?

It would require a significant shift in miner commitment and hashpower toward the fork, which the on-chain data shows no sign of yet.

Why is the gap between the fork and the main chain widening?

It is arithmetic: every block the main chain adds puts the enforcing fork one block further behind, and nothing in the current signaling environment suggests that will reverse.