BIP-110 Nodes Fork After Rejecting Non-Signaling Block at Height 961632
BIP-110 nodes have forked from the main chain after rejecting a non-signaling block at height 961632.
This proposal aims to temporarily restrict arbitrary data embedding in Bitcoin transactions, enforcing a signaling window that requires nodes to reject unsupported blocks, leading to a separation of executing nodes from the majority hash power chain.
The divergence in consensus rules triggers the risk of chain splits, resulting in the emergence of parallel chains under event-driven conditions, benefiting the majority hash power followers, while the liquidity and compatibility of minority executing nodes are under pressure.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
BIP-110, as a temporary soft fork proposal, promotes restrictions on Ordinals-type data transactions with a 55% signaling threshold and a mandatory window design, shifting from voluntary signaling to mandatory rejection by nodes, directly causing chain splits when hash power support is insufficient.
Resources and node hash power concentrate towards the minority group executing the new rules, motivated by temporarily blocking data abuse through the consensus layer, but the aggressive activation parameters have been criticized for increasing the risk of splits.
This is similar to the historical disputes between nodes and miners during Bitcoin scaling controversies; currently, it is at a stage of conflict between data transaction restrictions and network unity, where a soft fork lacking broad support can easily evolve into an actual fork.
Essentially, it involves technical alternatives and regulatory changes: consensus rules change the effective transaction set through mandatory enforcement by nodes, with the mechanism being that a minority of nodes rejecting the majority of blocks automatically forms a parallel chain, testing the economic majority's final choice on the rules.
ABAB News · Law of Cognition
The mandatory signaling window is the switch from soft fork to hard split
Nodes rejecting the majority of blocks actively choose the minority chain
The final arbiter of consensus divergence is the economic majority, not the code