A breakaway group of Bitcoin developers is preparing to launch a separate blockchain on Sept. 1 after their effort to change the rules of the dominant network failed to attract meaningful mining support. The planned chain would swap Bitcoin’s SHA-256 proof-of-work for the BLAKE2b hash function, a far more radical step than the proposal that started it all.
The story begins with BIP-110, a proposal from longtime Bitcoin developer Luke Dashjr that sought temporary restrictions on how arbitrary data is stored on the network. The rules would have limited large OP_RETURN outputs, restricted certain script formats, and capped contiguous arbitrary data exceeding 256 bytes. Supporters argued the restrictions would reduce storage burdens on node operators and preserve Bitcoin’s monetary character. Critics countered that transaction fees and node policies, not protocol mandates, should decide how block space is used.
## The Minority Branch That Stalled
BIP-110’s enforcing branch separated from Bitcoin’s dominant chain in August with only 2.53 percent of miner support behind it. The result was immediate and unforgiving: the minority branch produced just two blocks initially, while nearly all established mining power continued extending the existing network.
That outcome effectively settled the onchain argument. A chain without hash power cannot secure itself, and without miners, transactions cannot confirm reliably. The branch stalled, and with it, the push to restrict inscription-style data at the protocol level on Bitcoin’s main chain.
## A New Chain With a New Algorithm
Rather than concede entirely, BIP-110 supporters are now planning a separate chain that uses BLAKE2b proof-of-work instead of SHA-256. The choice is strategically deliberate. Bitcoin’s existing ASIC mining hardware is built for SHA-256, meaning incumbent miners cannot extend the new chain without fundamentally different equipment. The breakaway developers would start from a level playing field of general-purpose hardware rather than competing against industrial mining farms.
The launch is scheduled for September 1, though developers acknowledge the final activation remains technically conditional. Notably, no major exchange, wallet, or Lightning implementation had publicly committed support before the planned launch, leaving open questions about how anyone would actually transact on the chain, where its coins would trade, and whether any infrastructure will exist at all.
It is also worth underlining what BIP-110 itself was not. The original proposal covered temporary data restrictions, not a proof-of-work replacement. The BLAKE2b chain is a follow-on strategy by supporters who concluded they could not change the dominant network and chose to continue elsewhere instead.
## The Schwartz Dispute
The plan became the subject of a public dispute on Aug. 31 between BIP-110 supporter Loogart and Ripple co-founder David Schwartz, previously the company’s chief technology officer.
Loogart argued that supporters had accepted they lost the fight over Bitcoin’s dominant chain and were voluntarily continuing their experiment on a separate network. Schwartz took issue with the framing, replying “Listen to yourself” and rejecting language that portrayed one side as having tried to “fix the legacy chain,” arguing that such phrasing turned a good-faith technical disagreement into a morality tale.
Neither Ripple nor the XRP Ledger has any technical role in BIP-110 or the proposed chain. Schwartz’s comments reflect his personal view, but the exchange captures the deeper tension in Bitcoin’s inscription wars: whether arbitrary data onchain is an abuse to be corrected or a legitimate use of purchased block space.
## What a Fork Launch Actually Requires
History offers sobering precedent. Bitcoin has seen numerous spinoffs, from Bitcoin Cash in 2017 to Bitcoin Satoshi Vision the following year, and the graveyard is large. Surviving forks needed exchange listings, wallet support, mining infrastructure, and a community willing to build. A chain launching with none of those commitments publicly in place faces long odds regardless of the technical merits of its data policies.
The BLAKE2b plan does have one structural advantage: starting a new proof-of-work algorithm avoids the instant-hashpower problem that stalled the original minority branch. But it trades that problem for a bootstrapping one, finding miners willing to secure a network with no economy, no users, and no market price.
## Why It Matters
For Bitcoin observers, Sept. 1 is a natural experiment in how disputes resolve when protocol politics deadlock. The dominant network continues unchanged, insulated by overwhelming hash power, while a dissatisfied faction tests whether exit still works as a strategy. Most breakaway chains fade within months. Occasionally one survives long enough to matter.
Either way, the launch will answer a question Bitcoin culture has debated for years: whether the network’s rules are set by its economic majority or by those willing to walk away and build.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.
dashjr warned about OP_RETURN bloat for a decade and miners shrugged, so a fork was always the endpoint. still not mining a chain with zero exchange listings and a sept 1 deadline
blake2b means every laptop in a dorm is a miner again. the botnets are literally salivating over this sept 1 launch
botnets yes but also nicehash renters. a cpu pow chain at launch is a rented hashrace with bitcoin branding taped on
right, and nobody has blake2b hardware at bitcoin scale. day one emission gets set by whoever runs the most laptops and botnets, then they dump on the few exchange listings that exist
listing math: a cpu chain with zero replay protection talk is unlistable on any serious exchange day one. even the 2017 forks shipped replay protection before naming dates
botnets plus cpu only emission means the fairest launch ever for anyone with a spare server rack. everyone else is exit liquidity
a spare server rack gets you nothing once nicehash points a tenth of its fleet at blake2b for an afternoon. the fairest launch ever lasts about six hours
six hours is generous, nicehash renters would have it rented out in twenty minutes. fairest launch ever is a marketing line, not a security model
2.53 percent miner support and they think swapping sha-256 for blake2b fixes anything. that is not a breakaway, that is a science project
the original BIP-110 fight at least made sense as an argument about OP_RETURN limits. jumping straight to a new hash function feels like anger dressed up as engineering
minority chain mined two blocks and stalled and the takeaway was apparently lets also change the pow. dashjr is smart but this sept 1 launch smells like it dies in week one
agreed on the commitment problem. zero exchange listings announced and a two day deadline, the hash function swap is the easy part
the two day runway is the tell. real forks spend months on listing talks and replay protection before they dare name a launch date
week one is generous tbh. zero listings announced, no replay protection talk, cpu emission going straight to botnets. october ghost town sounds right
Every few years Bitcoin has one of these. Big block war, taproot resistance, now OP_RETURN. The main chain just keeps winning them.
swapping SHA-256 for BLAKE2b just bricks every ASIC overnight. so the breakaway is really a CPU chain with bitcoin’s name taped on it
A CPU chain with Bitcoin’s branding also means botnets take the early emission for free. We watched this movie with the 2017 forks already.
that’s the point tho, no ASIC inheritance means no hashpower fight on day one. whether anyone actually mines it is a different question
Luke Dashjr losing BIP-110 and then immediately shipping a whole fork feels less like principle and more like spite tbh
spite or not, the guy warned about OP_RETURN bloat for a decade and got 2.53% support. at some point you just build the thing you described
building the thing you described with a two day deadline and zero listings is not conviction, its a tantrum with a github repo
sept 1 launch lol. these chains always arrive with big talk and are ghost towns by october
ghost town by october assumes it survives day one. last preview run stalled after two blocks, changing the pow doesnt fix the commitment problem
ghost town assumes zero listings. if one mid tier exchange lists it day one you get a week of degenerate volume before the fade, thats the whole trade
2017 gave us a dozen of these bitcoin forks and exactly one kept any liquidity past year one. sept 1 will be loud, october will be quiet
2.53 percent of hashrate and two blocks was the market voting. shipping a new PoW chain is just running the same referendum with people who own CPUs