Bitcoin reached block 961,632 over the weekend, triggering the start of a long-awaited “mandatory signaling” period for BIP-110—an upgrade proposal that aims to change what data can be permanently stored in bitcoin transactions. The shift has immediate consequences for some holders who may later try to exit assets associated with a minority fork, according to a CoinDesk report citing concerns raised by a developer.
At the center of the dispute is BIP-110’s plan to temporarily limit the inclusion of “non-payment” information—such as images and text—in transactions. Supporters argue that the approach would reduce congestion and costs. Critics counter that the move interferes with users’ freedom to use scarce block space according to their own preferences, even if that usage is not strictly financial data.
What makes the proposal particularly consequential is the mechanism by which it would become enforced. CoinDesk reports that, starting from block 961,632, computers running BIP-110 software would begin rejecting any block that does not carry the required mark, “whether miners agreed or not.” In practice, that means if the vast majority of mined blocks fail to signal support, the nodes following the BIP-110 rule could refuse to accept the chain that other participants are building.
The rejected-block risk is magnified by the fact that nearly all blocks mined at the time did not include the signaling mark. As described by CoinDesk, this is the reason the BIP-110-enabled computers are expected to start cutting themselves off from the main chain assembled by most hash power. The result is a possible split: two competing views of which history is valid, depending on which software rules a particular node operator chooses to run.
BIP-110’s supporters have emphasized that they are not relying solely on miners to vote the change through in the conventional way. Instead, the proposal is framed as a user-activated soft fork (UASF), which would depend on node operators—rather than miners—to enforce the rule change. In this model, users update their node software to reject blocks mined by miners that do not signal support for BIP-110, effectively applying pressure on miners to align with the new expectation or risk isolation.
CoinDesk notes that prominent public figures have voiced opposition to the proposal. Michael Saylor, chairman of Strategy, and Blockstream CEO Adam Back are both cited as having spoken against BIP-110. Supporters, meanwhile, continue to argue that the economic and behavioral logic of a user-activated framework is appropriate: if users believe software updates alter the network’s intended behavior, they can choose to reject them through their own node policies.
Whether the upgrade succeeds or fails, governance dynamics are central to the debate. As CoinDesk framed it, Bitcoin’s governance is ultimately driven by “economic coordination,” not necessarily by immediate, unified consensus. Even if miners do not provide enough signaling to indicate support, the UASF approach could still force an outcome by shifting which chain participants accept.
Operationally, BIP-110 is tied to a signaling threshold that would indicate broad miner alignment. The proposal needs 1,109 marked blocks out of a 2,016-block stretch—equivalent to 55%. Blocks are produced about every ten minutes, meaning the threshold effectively measures whether a majority of mining activity is repeatedly marking blocks as signaling acceptance.
Yet the signaling data observed at the moment BIP-110 entered its mandatory phase appeared weak. CoinDesk reported that during the signaling period, miner support seldom exceeded 2.5%, far below the 55% threshold. In effect, that gap suggests that most miners were either unwilling or unable to produce blocks with the required mark—setting the stage for BIP-110 nodes to reject the chain favored by nearly all mining power.
CoinDesk’s reporting also points to timing: the signaling phase began around 19:35 UTC on Saturday, when Bitcoin reached the designated height. Observers were watching not only for whether support would rise, but for whether the BIP-110 enforcement would lead to a coherent fork that other participants could join, or instead fragment into a stalled side chain.
That latter outcome appears to be what unfolded shortly after activation. In a follow-up report, CoinDesk described that a new, minority chain created when BIP-110 supporters split from Bitcoin went live at block 961,632. But roughly eight hours later, the fork had produced only two blocks—while the main bitcoin chain continued to advance. CoinDesk’s situation monitor indicated the BIP-110 chain sitting at block 961,633 while the primary chain reached block 961,681.
Crucially, there was “no sign” that miners intended to keep the BIP-110 chain moving. In other words, even though the rules for BIP-110 nodes may have been enforceable locally once the height was reached, the minority chain lacked the mining follow-through needed for sustained growth. Without ongoing block production, the fork risks becoming a dead end for liquidity and settlement.
For bitcoin holders, the practical implication is a question of fungibility and withdrawal safety. CoinDesk’s primary report warns that holders may be able to end up with assets tied to a forked history they cannot reliably spend or exchange as “real BTC.” The concern is not merely theoretical: if a minority chain stalls and exchanges, wallets, and counterparties treat the forked coins differently, attempting to sell could expose holders to price discounts, delayed settlement, or outright loss.
At the same time, the episode illustrates why BIP-110 has remained a live topic despite low signaling: the controversy is not only about Ordinals or “spam,” but about how software enforcement and node operator choices can reshape the network’s coordination. The next moves—whether additional participants join BIP-110 nodes, whether miners change behavior, and how markets interpret any resulting fork—will determine if the proposal leaves behind anything more than a brief divergence.
For now, the record is clear: block 961,632 marked the beginning of mandatory enforcement for BIP-110 nodes; miner support for the needed signaling fell far short of the 55% target; and the minority fork that emerged soon after produced just two blocks while the main chain advanced by dozens. The stakes for holders who might hold or attempt to liquidate fork-associated coins therefore remain high, as CoinDesk warned in its analysis. CoinDesk CoinDesk CoinDesk
SHOP AMAZON BEST SELLERS, CLICK TO BUY FROM AMAZON.
SHOP AMAZON BEST SELLERS, CLICK TO BUY FROM AMAZON.
