BIP-110's brief life as an active fork is over — administratively, at least. The proposal's official document in the bitcoin/bips repository now carries the status Closed, and on Monday evening the BIP editors removed Luke Dashjr — the proposal's most prominent champion — from their own ranks. The minority chain, meanwhile, has not produced a block in more than two days, and our block-by-block count of the main chain now reads 335-for-335 against signaling. Here is where everything stands as of Tuesday, August 11, 2026.
The repository closes the book
Version 1.0.1 of the BIP-110 document, dated August 9, marks the proposal Closed “following a chain split with stalled mining.” As crypto.news reports, that is a documentation change, not a network action — nothing stops nodes or miners from continuing to enforce the alternative rules. But the facts on the ground match the label: OCEAN's BIP-110 endpoint still showed block 961,633 as its latest roughly 55 hours after it was mined, leaving the enforcing branch frozen at two blocks while the main chain, now past 961,966, runs more than 330 blocks ahead.
Our own count, updated block-by-block from mempool.space: of the 335 main-chain blocks mined in the mandatory window so far (961,632 through 961,966 as of ~06:50 UTC), exactly zero carry the bit-4 version signal. The window runs to block 963,647 — which coincides with the next difficulty retarget, projected around August 22–23.
The editors remove Dashjr
The organizational aftershock arrived faster than the technical one. On August 9, BIP editor Mark “Murch” Erhardt opened a motion on the Bitcoin Development Mailing List alleging that Dashjr had applied the editorial process inconsistently while helping develop and promote BIP-110 — pointing to the proposal's number assignment and a rapidly merged update as examples of preferential treatment. Developers including Matt Corallo and fellow editor Olaoluwa Osuntokun supported removal; Jon Atack merged the pull request (bips #2248) on August 10, and Bryan Bishop confirmed Dashjr is no longer a permissioned user of the repository. Five editors remain: Bishop, Atack, Erhardt, Osuntokun and Ruben Somsen.
Two fairness notes belong here. First, the claims against Dashjr are allegations by fellow contributors, not findings of any formal body — no such body exists. Second, Dashjr rejects them outright, calling them “false accusations” and disputing the editors' authority:
This is just an abuse of power by Core. They have no authority to do so.
— Luke Dashjr (@LukeDashjr) August 10, 2026
The dispute exposed a real governance gap: Jameson Lopp noted there is no formal structure covering the appointment or removal of BIP editors, and Antoine Riard pointed out that BIPs 1, 2 and 3 lack any explicit removal procedure — even as he supported Dashjr stepping aside. The BIP process has now executed its first contested editor removal with no written rules for doing so.
Worth being precise about what the editorship is and is not: BIP 3 describes editors as administrators of the proposal repository — they check submissions for prior discussion, formatting and technical completeness, assign numbers, and merge changes. The document explicitly says editors do not judge whether a proposal will be adopted. Dashjr's removal therefore changes who gatekeeps the paperwork of Bitcoin proposals, not who decides consensus rules; the fork's failure was decided by miners and node operators, days before the editors acted. But paperwork power was exactly what the complaint alleged was misused, which is why the outcome resonates beyond one proposal.
Timeline of a two-block fork
| Date (2026) | Event |
|---|---|
| Aug 7–8 | Mandatory window arms with 2.53% trailing support (51 of 2,016 blocks) |
| Aug 8 | Block 961,632: window opens; enforcing nodes reject non-signaling blocks |
| Aug 8 | Roughnecks (via OCEAN DATUM) mine branch blocks 961,632–961,633 at full 127.48T difficulty |
| Aug 9 | No third block; BIP-110 v1.0.1 marked Closed; Erhardt files removal motion |
| Aug 10 | Main chain 200+ blocks ahead; Dashjr removed as BIP editor (PR #2248 merged) |
| Aug 11 | Branch frozen ~55+ hrs; our count 0-for-335 on bit-4 signaling |
What's left to watch
Three threads survive the closure. First, the PoW-change contingency: developer Chris Guida's public code for resetting the minority chain's proof-of-work — effectively “firing” the miners who declined to follow — remains a repository without an activation date, and any commitment to one would reopen the story. Second, replay risk, flagged last week by Kevin Loaec, remains theoretical while the branch produces no blocks but non-zero if it ever restarts. Third, the calendar: block 963,648 around August 22–23 closes the signaling window and executes a difficulty retarget currently projected in the low single digits positive — the formal end of the episode on the dominant chain.
For a visual walkthrough of how the split unfolded at the node level, this update from Rabid Mining tracks the two-block branch and the node battle in real time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cC4GfI4tjXc
The market, for its part, has moved on: fees sit near 1 sat/vB, hashrate is steady near 900 EH/s, and bitcoin's price action this week is about CPI and ETF flows, not the fork. A protocol fight that consumed the industry for a month ended up costing the network roughly nothing — and cost its chief advocate his editorship.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute investment, financial, or legal advice. Cryptocurrency markets are volatile and carry significant risk, including the possible loss of principal. Always do your own research and consult a licensed financial advisor before making investment decisions.