Bitcoin’s most contentious governance event of 2026 has concluded. The BIP-110 hard fork, which was supposed to restrict data-heavy transactions and has triggered warnings about potential chain splits, executed Saturday and concluded with a decisive outcome: the original Bitcoin chain retained 99.85% of all hashpower while the minority BIP-110 branch fell behind and became abandoned within hours.
The fork executed exactly as skeptics predicted
The scheduled hard-fork event took place as anticipated, with nodes enforcing BIP-110 rules and nodes enforcing standard Bitcoin rules diverging at the specified block height. However, the hashpower split never materialized as a genuine consensus question.
Within the first hours after the fork, miners made their preference clear: the original Bitcoin chain received 99.85% of all hashpower, while the BIP-110 branch captured only 0.15%. By the end of the first 24 hours, the minority chain had produced only two blocks total and fallen 80+ blocks behind the majority chain — a gap that eliminated any realistic economic scenario in which minority-chain blocks would ever catch up or be reorg’d back onto the longest chain.
Why nearly all hashpower abandoned the BIP-110 branch
The speed at which miners abandoned the minority fork reflects straightforward economic logic: the majority chain is worth far more.
Price and liquidity. The original Bitcoin chain hosts all major exchange orderbooks, ETF inflows, and price discovery. The BIP-110 fork never achieved a listing on any major exchange with meaningful volume. Miners earning blocks on the minority chain receive coins that cannot be readily sold, making block rewards economically worthless.
Institutional settlement. Every significant Bitcoin custodian, every major exchange, and every spot Bitcoin ETF continued to treat the original chain as Bitcoin. The BIP-110 fork was never supported by any major infrastructure provider. Miners mining the fork were producing an asset with no institutional on-ramp and no clear exit path.
Protocol simplicity. The original chain remains the chain that almost all nodes run, almost all wallets support, and almost all users transact on. Miners receive the most predictable, most liquid compensation by mining the majority chain.
These factors made the decision rational: miners would rather earn blocks with diminished value on the majority chain than earn blocks with near-zero value on the minority chain. That equilibrium formed within hours.
What the overwhelming hashpower split means for Bitcoin governance
The BIP-110 fork provides a real-world case study in how Bitcoin’s governance actually works under stress, and it points to a more durable system than the pre-fork debate suggested.
A common fear in the months leading up to the fork was that Bitcoin could split into two economically viable chains, leaving holders uncertain which version was “real.” The actual outcome suggests that scenario is harder to engineer than it sounds. Even a proposal with vocal backers (including prominent developers like Luke Dashjr) and weeks of public debate failed to convince more than a rounding error of hashpower to switch sides.
This suggests that for a genuine 50-50 split to occur, one of two things would have to be true: (1) the economic value and user support for both chains would have to be much closer than they were for BIP-110, or (2) one side would have to own a critical mass of hashpower (like 40%+) and have a compelling reason to mine at a loss on the minority chain.
Neither condition applied to BIP-110. The fork was more of a governance stress test than a network-splitting event.
What happened to Luke Dashjr’s PoW hard-fork threat
In the weeks before the scheduled fork, developer Luke Dashjr raised the stakes by suggesting he might pursue a proof-of-work hard fork to reverse the chain and prevent the BIP-110 fork from occurring at all. This threat — a far more disruptive outcome than a simple chain split — understandably drew attention from risk-averse node operators and exchanges.
The threat did not materialize into action. As the fork approached and its low probability of activation became clear, Dashjr’s hard-fork idea did not gain the critical mass of node support that would be required to execute it. The PoW hard fork remained a threat rather than a scheduled event.
What to watch in the fork’s aftermath
The fork is now closed as a live governance story. Bitcoin continues on a single chain with 99.85% of hashpower, the vast majority of nodes, and all material economic activity. The BIP-110 chain exists in theory but is no longer receiving miner support, new blocks, or active transaction activity.
For holders, this means: verify that your node or exchange is on the chain with 99.85% of hashpower (which is functionally “all of it”), and proceed normally. For developers, this provides a real-world calibration on how resistant Bitcoin’s economic structure actually is to contentious proposed changes — far more resistant than governance debates alone suggest.
Bottom line
The BIP-110 fork has concluded, and the result was not a genuine network split but a governance test. Bitcoin retained 99.85% of hashpower, the minority chain fell behind and became abandoned, and the network moved forward with the original rules intact. This outcome suggests that Bitcoin’s consensus mechanism — ultimately based on hashpower and economic value — is more robust to contentious governance proposals than the pre-fork debate allowed. The fork was real, the risk was real, but the resolution was decisive and unambiguous.
Advertisement
Sources and review
This article was checked against the primary or authoritative sources below .
Frequently asked questions
Yes. The BIP-110 hard fork executed as scheduled. However, the outcome was far more lopsided than the contentious pre-fork debate suggested. Bitcoin's original chain retained 99.85% of all hashpower, while the BIP-110 minority branch captured only 0.15%, managed two blocks total, and quickly became economically non-viable to mine.
It demonstrates that despite weeks of governance debate, the mining ecosystem was never close to a genuine 50-50 split. The overwhelming consensus on the original chain means the fork was a governance test rather than an existential network event. Luke Dashjr's warnings about a power hard fork proved to be threats rather than events.
The BIP-110 fork chain exists in theory, but it is no longer receiving hashpower or producing blocks at any meaningful rate. Within hours of the fork, miners abandoned it as economically irrational when the majority chain had 80+ block lead and growing. Transactions on the minority chain are not being validated or confirmed.
Holders running standard Bitcoin Core software are on the chain with 99.85% of hashpower and remain unaffected. Those who explicitly downloaded and ran BIP-110-enforcing software are on the minority chain, which is no longer receiving miner support. Holders should verify their node's current state but need not take action unless they were deliberately running minority-chain software.
The original Bitcoin chain remains more economically valuable due to higher price, greater liquidity, deeper exchange integration, and support from major custodians and institutions. Miners follow value. The BIP-110 chain never achieved a critical mass of economic activity, making it rational for miners to stay with the majority.
Advertisement