The Math

For most of this summer, support for BIP-110 has languished below 1% of mined blocks. After the Ocean mining pool enabled signaling by default, that number crept up to around 2–3%—still a far cry from the 55% threshold the proposal itself sets for voluntary activation.

Michael Saylor, whose company Strategy now holds approximately 4% of all Bitcoin in circulation, has been the most vocal opponent. In an Aug. 1 analysis, Saylor reported that at block 960,561, there were only 24 BIP-110 signaling blocks out of 946 (2.54%). By Aug. 4, the count had risen to just 38 signals in roughly 1,400 blocks—still 2.70%.

Here’s where it gets dangerous. Saylor calculated that the proposal needs 1,109 signaling blocks within a 2,016-block difficulty period to meet the voluntary 55% threshold. With the remaining blocks in the current period, even if every single one signaled, the tally could only reach about 936—making the 55% target “mathematically unreachable.”

The Mandatory Trap

But here’s the twist that has the community on edge. Because the voluntary path is closed, BIP-110 moves into a second, mandatory phase around block 961,632—projected for August 8–9. At that point, nodes running the BIP-110 software will start rejecting blocks that don’t signal support for the change. If major miners don’t switch over, Bitcoin’s main chain keeps following the existing rules while BIP-110 nodes follow a different set.

That’s not consensus. That’s a forced fork with minority support.

“At 961,632, BIP-110 nodes reject non-signaling blocks,” Saylor posted on X on Aug. 4. “Unless major miners reverse, Bitcoin continues normally while BIP-110 stalls or forks into irrelevance. Its backers should stand down.”

The Developer Drama and Personal Feuds

What makes this saga particularly juicy is the cast of characters involved. Luke Dashjr, the Bitcoin Core developer who has refused to withdraw BIP-110 despite widespread opposition, is at the center of the storm. The proposal was written by pseudonymous developer Dathon Ohm, with technical input from Dashjr.

Adam Back, Blockstream’s CEO, has been equally dismissive. He mocked BIP-110 backers on X for failing to fund what he called a cypherpunk summer celebration. Back has also questioned claims that Satoshi Nakamoto backed the proposal. The drama has even resurrected a 12-year-old dispute involving Dashjr and blacklists, with Nakamoto CEO David Bailey arguing that the record disqualifies Dashjr from steering Bitcoin.

The Stakes: What Happens Next?

If the mandatory window triggers and lock-in occurs (projected around block 963,648, with activation at block 965,664), Bitcoin could split into two separate chains. Exchanges may temporarily pause deposits and withdrawals due to replay attack risks. Lightning Network users could face complications because Lightning depends on both participants agreeing on the underlying blockchain.

The irony isn’t lost on anyone. BIP-110 was designed to “protect Bitcoin’s core attributes as a currency” by reducing blockchain bloat. But in attempting to enforce “monetary purity”, its backers may have triggered exactly the kind of network split they claimed to want to avoid.

Bull vs. Bear: Two Scenarios

Bullish Scenario: The mandatory window passes with minimal disruption. Major mining pools—Foundry, AntPool, F2Pool, and ViaBTC, none of which have signaled support so far—continue mining the original chain. BIP-110 nodes eventually capitulate or the proposal dies from lack of economic relevance. Bitcoin’s governance proves resilient, and the network emerges stronger for having weathered the storm.

Bearish Scenario: The mandatory window triggers a genuine chain split. A minority chain following BIP-110 rules persists, creating confusion among users, exchanges, and Lightning nodes. The market punishes both chains with volatility, and Bitcoin’s brand as the most secure, decentralized network takes a reputational hit. The precedent of a minority forcing a rule change undermines confidence in Bitcoin’s governance model for years to come.

Summary

BIP-110 isn’t just a technical proposal—it’s a stress test of Bitcoin’s entire governance philosophy. Can a tiny minority of developers and node operators force a rule change against the will of miners, major holders, and the broader community? Or will Bitcoin’s built-in inertia and economic incentives preserve the status quo?

Saylor put it best when he dismissed the measure as “a Bitcoin Iatrogenic Proposal”—repurposing the BIP acronym with the medical term for harm caused by treatment. His closing line in that essay still echoes: “Bitcoin does not need guardians of purity.”

The next 48 to 72 hours will determine whether that warning was prophetic or paranoid. Either way, we’re about to find out if Bitcoin can upgrade without consensus—and the answer might not be pretty.