Lopp Warns BIP-110 Could Cause Bitcoin Chain Split and Coordination Crisis
Bitcoin developer and commentator Jameson Lopp criticized BIP-110 in a Feb. 23 post, warning the proposed soft-fork change could trigger a disruptive chain split and significant coordination risk. BIP-110, led by Luke Dashjr, would add seven transaction-validity restrictions to limit arbitrary data in transactions. Lopp argues the proposal’s 55% miner-signaling threshold for a user-activated soft fork (UASF) and mandatory activation at block height 961,632 materially raise the chance of competing chains if miners, exchanges, wallets and other infrastructure do not align. He notes BIP-110 nodes would reject non-compliant blocks, increasing enforcement risk compared with softer-deployed upgrades. Lopp also contests claims of grassroots momentum, saying node-counts and Tor-based signaling are weak proxies for consensus and reporting miner support as effectively zero at publication; he cites public opposition from F2Pool and suggests miners lack incentive to back changes that could reduce fee revenue. The broader concern is governance: even a failed activation push could impose costly operational burdens, forcing businesses to plan for low-probability but high-impact coordination failures. At the time of reporting, BTC traded near $62,800.
Bearish
The news raises material coordination and governance risk for Bitcoin. A user-activated soft fork with a low miner-signaling threshold and mandatory activation height increases the probability of a contentious split if major economic actors do not align. Historically, hard or contentious forks and activation battles (e.g., Bitcoin Cash splits, SegWit-era tensions) have increased short-term volatility, raised risk premia, and prompted exchanges and custodians to take protective measures (withdrawal halts, replay-protection planning). Lopp’s criticism — citing near-zero miner support and weak node-signaling proxies — suggests BIP-110 lacks backing from economically significant players, increasing the chance of a messy outcome or prolonged market uncertainty. Short-term impact: elevated volatility and risk-off positioning, possible exchange operational actions, and temporary price downside as traders price coordination risk. Long-term impact: if the proposal fails cleanly, effects could be muted but leave lingering governance fears; if it precipitates a split, lasting network fragmentation and user/infrastructure costs could depress market confidence and liquidity. Overall, the immediate trading implication favors risk reduction and caution until clarity on miner, exchange, and major node adoption emerges.