BIP-110 proponents are debating whether to change the proof-of-work algorithm on their stalled minority chain after it managed to mine only two blocks before Bitcoin’s enormous difficulty effectively brought activity to a signficant crawl.
Key Takeaways
BIP-110’s minority chain stalled after 2 blocks under Bitcoin’s 127.48 trillion difficulty.Luke Dashjr weighed new PoW options after BIP-110 miner support stayed near 0%-2.6%.Bitcoin Knots has no PoW switch scheduled as BIP-110 backers debate how to revive the chain. There’s suggestions to initiate the revival via a consensus change, possibly in September.The problem facing the BIP-110 chain is straightforward: it inherited Bitcoin’s roughly 127.48 trillion mining difficulty while attracting only a tiny fraction of Bitcoin’s SHA-256d hashpower.
That mismatch is why the chain slowed so dramatically. The rules did not automatically adjust difficulty downward simply because most miners stayed with Bitcoin. With only limited SHA-256d hashpower working on the minority chain, finding another block could take an extremely long time unless substantially more miners join or the chain’s rules are changed.
‘Fire the Miners’ Emerges as a Possible Escape RouteThe idea would not alter Bitcoin’s dominant chain. Instead, the contemplated change would give the BIP-110 minority chain a different mining algorithm, allowing it to escape dependence on the SHA-256d mining industry that overwhelmingly remained with Bitcoin after the split.
That distinction matters. Existing Bitcoin miners operate ASIC machines specifically engineered for SHA-256d. If the BIP-110 chain adopted another algorithm, those machines could no longer automatically dominate mining on that chain and hurt it in any way.
BIP-110’s Failed Signaling Push Drives the DebateThe proposal temporarily restricts several ways non-financial data can be embedded in transactions, including techniques associated with Ordinals, BRC-20 tokens and similar protocols. Supporters argue the restrictions would reduce blockchain data they consider spam while preserving Bitcoin primarily as a monetary settlement network.
BIP-110 was designed around a 55% miner-signaling threshold. If miners did not voluntarily reach that level, enforcing nodes would begin rejecting non-signaling blocks once the mandatory period started at block 961632.
Inside the Bitcoin Knots Discord server’s #strategic channel, the discussion has increasingly focused on what kind of proof-of-work system could keep the BIP-110 chain moving without relying on existing Bitcoin miners.
The central question is not simply which algorithm works technically. The group is trying to determine what algorithm could give the minority chain usable mining power without immediately handing control to another established group of specialized miners. Several of the members of the Discord are relying on generated artificial intelligence (AI) summaries for ideas and asking Dashjr what he thinks.
Every Mining Option Creates a New ProblemScrypt illustrates the problem. Some Knots Discord participants stressed that Litecoin and Dogecoin already have substantial Scrypt ASIC infrastructure, meaning a BIP-110 chain using Scrypt could potentially attract meaningful hashpower quickly.
CPU- or GPU-oriented mining could broaden participation initially, but specialized machines could still emerge later. The discussion therefore centers on how to bootstrap a viable minority chain without recreating the same concentration problem supporters believe exists around SHA-256d mining.
Dashjr Floats a Random Algorithm SelectionDashjr suggested one possible way to reduce the risk of somebody preparing specialized hardware ahead of everyone else.
Rather than choosing a single algorithm in advance, he proposed assembling a short list of acceptable candidates and allowing a deterministic random process to make the final selection.
“I don’t think we should choose anything,” Dashjr said. “Make a short list of viable candidates, and let a deterministic random select from it.” He later explained the rationale:
“That way nobody knows before everyone knows.”
The proposal appears designed to prevent miners or hardware manufacturers from secretly gaining a head start by knowing which algorithm the BIP-110 chain will ultimately use.
The Argument Expands Into Bitcoin GovernanceThe technical debate also exposes a deeper disagreement over the relationship between miners and nodes. One participant compared nodes to a “legislative branch” and miners to an “executive branch,” arguing miners “should have no say.” Another said supporters needed to find a way to stop depending on miners for consensus.
Mark Erhardt, widely known in bitcoin circles as “Murch,” a prominent software engineer, researcher and Bitcoin developer, took to X to reveal that a request has been made to remove Dashjr as a BIP editor.
