Bitcoin’s contentious BIP-110 upgrade track is showing tangible friction in the form of a widening chain split. According to the BIP-110 monitor, the enforcing (BIP-110 validating) branch has stalled at block 961,633 after producing only two blocks, while the non-enforcing branch has advanced to block 961,721—pushing the gap to 88 blocks.

As the disagreement persists through the period where difficulty adjustments cannot yet fully catch up, the episode is again highlighting how “mandatory signaling” mechanics can turn a soft-proposal into an operational contest between node policies and mining output.

Key takeaways

The enforcing BIP-110 branch halted at block 961,633, while the non-enforcing chain reached 961,721, widening divergence to 88 blocks.
BIP-110 nodes reject blocks that do not signal via version bit 4, while ordinary Bitcoin nodes accept both signaling and non-signaling blocks—enabling two simultaneous histories.
Mandatory signaling began at block 961,632, following a signaling rate of only 2.53% (51 out of 2,016 blocks) in the prior window.
Ocean records attribute the enforcing branch’s first two blocks to a pseudonymous mining group named Roughnecks using Ocean’s DATUM mining protocol.
Mandatory signaling is scheduled to continue through block 963,647, and enforcing nodes must mine through the remainder of the 2,016-block adjustment period before difficulty can respond.

A split driven by node policy and signaling

The divergence started right as BIP-110 moved into mandatory signaling. The BIP-110 monitor reported the latest state as of 10:19 am UTC, showing the enforcing branch’s last block at 961,633—about 12 hours after the branch produced its two-block output.

In the window immediately before mandatory signaling, only 51 of the previous 2,016 blocks signaled support for BIP-110. The 2.53% figure matters because it reflects how limited the share of blocks was that complied with the signaling requirement before the stricter rule took effect.

Under the BIP-110 mechanism, nodes enforcing the proposal reject blocks that do not signal the required version bit (version bit 4). By contrast, standard Bitcoin nodes do not apply the same rejection rule and therefore accept both signaling and non-signaling blocks. That asymmetry is what allows two competing chains to progress independently when miners do not consistently produce blocks meeting the enforcing criteria.

What changed at block 961,632

Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that BIP-110 crossed key thresholds as “spam wars” around transaction-level policy heated up. Building on that context, the current episode is now anchored to a precise transition: BIP-110 entered mandatory signaling at block 961,632 on Saturday.

The proposal’s terms, including the way mandatory signaling is enforced, run through block 963,647, according to the BIP-110 documentation. This implies that miners and enforcing nodes remain in a regime where the enforcing branch can only be strengthened if sufficiently more blocks comply with the signaling requirement.

Importantly for traders and operators tracking chain health, progress is not instantaneous. The enforcing branch must continue mining through the remainder of the 2,016-block difficulty adjustment period before difficulty can adjust, making it harder for a smaller enforcing cohort to “catch up” quickly without a material increase in hashpower.

Mining attribution points to a small cohort

Ocean’s records on the relevant block history provide additional detail on who produced the early enforcing blocks. Ocean data associated the enforcing branch’s first two blocks with a pseudonymous mining group called Roughnecks.

Those blocks were reportedly mined using Ocean’s Decentralized Alternative Templates for Universal Mining (DATUM) mining protocol, as reflected in Ocean’s block information for the cited enforcing-branch block. The fact that only a limited number of enforcing-compliant blocks appeared before the stalling suggests—without proving intent—that the set of miners producing compliant blocks has been comparatively small.

That matters operationally: if compliance is concentrated among a niche subgroup rather than broadly distributed across the mining ecosystem, the enforcing branch can lag for long stretches—exactly what the current 88-block gap illustrates.

Why critics argue the rules risk unintended consequences

The BIP-110 controversy has long centered on whether forcing consensus-level behavior around signaling and block acceptance is worth the potential benefits. Prominent Bitcoin figures have criticized the change as potentially undermining neutrality and creating avoidable risks.

Strategy executive chairman Michael Saylor told Cointelegraph that while he supports the proposal’s objectives, he argued its approach threatened Bitcoin’s “neutral rules” and consensus. Separately, Blockstream CEO Adam Back warned, also via Cointelegraph coverage, that a consensus-level change could damage Bitcoin’s credibility and potentially make certain unspent transaction outputs unspendable.

While today’s split is not a verdict on the broader debate, it does underscore how quickly policy-based enforcement can translate into practical chain divergence when signaling support is thin and hashpower distribution doesn’t align with the enforcing conditions.

For readers watching this closely, the question is less whether the debate exists—critics and supporters are both on the record—but how sustained the operational divergence becomes once mandatory signaling remains in place through block 963,647.

What to monitor next

Until the enforcing branch reaches a point where difficulty can adjust—or until miners meaningfully increase the share of compliant signaling—watch for whether the enforcing chain resumes producing blocks at a higher rate and whether the block gap continues to widen or begins to narrow before block 963,647.