There is a minority in Bitcoin that has spent years building tools to make Bitcoin more decentralized. They built @OCEAN to decentralize mining and block-template construction. They built simple, accessible node hardware so more people could validate Bitcoin themselves and have a voice in the network @Start9 They even rented hashrate and pointed it toward smaller pools to reduce mining centralization. Then on Saturday, five major mining pools chose a path that forked this minority off, despite having the option to keep them on the network. That choice should have consequences. Exiting Bitcoin is not the answer. Now is the time to use the decentralization tools that have already been built. Move hashrate away from dominant pools. Mine through smaller, more decentralized options. Run your own node. Construct your own block templates. Support infrastructure that reduces our dependence on a handful of mining pools. The response should be to make those five pools less important. Compete against them. Take hashrate away from them. Reduce their influence. If mining pools make decisions that damage the network, we should make them feel the economic consequences.

Did Foundry stop mining as soon as mandatory signaling started, or only after Antpool found the first block? It would be interesting to know whether Foundry initially signaled BIP110 and then, after seeing Antpool’s block, pivoted, stopped mining, and waited or whether they stopped right when mandatory signaling began. It’s possible that it was simply chance that determined which chain won. I’m still unsure why they didn’t prevent a chain split.

Probably the best listen for understanding the debate and preparing for today’s event. It explains what could happen and why.

My prediction for today: Small miners can’t really decide on BIP110 themselves; they have to follow the big miners. If either Foundry or Antpool flips the bit while the other doesn’t, the one that doesn’t could be in serious trouble. If both flip it, they’re safe. In that case, they would benefit from mining blocks with less competition for some time, until the smaller miners catch up and follow them. On top of that, by flipping the bit, they serve 100% of nodes. With the majority of the hashrate, the BIP110 chain will grow faster and overwrite legacy blocks. No permanent chain split, and all economic value remains on one chain. I think both Antpool and Foundry will flip the bit. In that case, they can’t really lose. They benefit from less competition until all miners converge on one chain. There will probably be a temporary split until all miners start signaling BIP110.

What if the allegations against Adam Back were true, and the mining operation was in fact a Ponzi scheme? The implications could be significant. If many developers associated with Bitcoin Core, companies, or other prominent figures had lent money to finance that operation, Adam’s inability to repay those loans could expose them to substantial financial losses. In the worst case, some companies could face serious financial distress or even insolvency. Under that hypothetical scenario, one possible explanation for the strong opposition to BIP110 would be that they believe Blockstream’s Simplicity smart contract project could generate enough value to help close that financial gap. If BIP110 were to succeed, there might be no realistic way to recover those funds.

Almost everyone loses unless BIP110 activates without a chain split. For leveraged companies with significant debt, opposing BIP110 without a successful URSF is like shooting themselves in the foot. A split would divide capital between two chains, reduce miner revenue, put downward pressure on Bitcoin’s price, increase the risk of a leverage cascade, create technical challenges for Lightning, add operational costs for exchanges, and damage Bitcoin’s reputation. Every company operating in the Bitcoin ecosystem stands to lose from that outcome. So why are they pushing so hard against BIP110? If Bitcoin is used as money, most users wouldn’t even notice whether BIP110 activates. But everyone would notice the consequences of a chain split. So what do they believe they would lose if BIP110 activates?

The best outcome for everyone would be for BIP110 to activate without a chain split. If that happens, it would still be possible to revisit the change in a year. The opponents of BIP110 failed to build enough momentum for a URSF. Instead of engaging with the concerns raised about the changes introduced in Bitcoin Core v30, many dissenting voices were ignored, blocked, or dismissed. This is the result of that approach. For leveraged companies, promoting opposition that could lead to a chain split is a highly risky strategy. I’m prepared for any outcome. If the Bitcoin price drops significantly, i don’t care. Whether every company or miner can afford such a scenario is another question. I’m ready and have no reason to be anxious. My bitcoin is in cold storage and secure. At what point leveraged companies will realize this, I don’t know. But for their own sake, I hope they do before it’s too late.

With over 15% of the network’s nodes, the longer it takes for a block to be found on the BIP110 chain, the higher the transaction fees rise. That attracts more miners, increasing the risk of the other chain being wiped out. Don’t be fooled by debt-ridden companies. They don’t pay you, they simply benefit from Bitcoin’s price appreciation. But in the event of a chain split, they would likely have the most to lose if the price falls. It seems they underestimated the risks. If they don’t reconsider their opposition, they may end up paying the highest price.

It’s interesting to watch. Core supporters seem to appear out of nowhere every few weeks. Once their arguments are debunked or their conflicts of interest become apparent, they disappear, only to be replaced by another new voice. In contrast, the people supporting BIP110 have largely been the same individuals from the beginning, consistently making their case over time.

If BIP110 fails, I will sell a portion of my Bitcoins. If corporate interests are valued more than those of the plebs, it means Bitcoin is not as decentralized as I believed, and I need to diversify more. Corporate entities are driven to maximize shareholder value. They can’t simply sell if a chain split happens. On top of that, there is no technical opposition in form of a URSF to BIP110. If miners understand this, there will be no chain split.

No major investor funds a business built around embedding arbitrary data into Bitcoin if that use case could disappear overnight. Core V30 changed those incentives by treating data on bitcoin as a feature to protect. That’s what BIP110 tries to solve. Sending that message is a powerful way to discourage future spam projects.

I’ve been mining on my own node for the past month using rented hashpower from Braiins and directing it to Ocean with around 2 PH/s. I was fully prepared to lose a bit while supporting decentralization, but funnily I actually ended up making around $50. To all the power seekers in Bitcoin: the plebs are coming. And on top of that, we’re even making money while doing it.

Actually, the fact that mining pools are so large may make it easier to carry out a UASF in practice. If around 30% of the hashrate is controlled by a single pool, then even a relatively small shift can change the dynamics very quickly. For example, if at the beginning 20% of the hashrate is mining on the BIP110 side and Foundry mines two blocks in a row on the opposing chain, then Antpool switching its 30% to the BIP110 side could suddenly push the situation close to 50/50. At that point, Foundry would face a real risk that the blocks it just mined could become invalid on the chain that eventually wins. Because miners are economically incentivized to avoid that risk, large pools may switch sides faster than many people expect. So ironically, mining centralization may actually make a UASF easier to activate, because only a few large pools need to change behavior for pressure on the rest of the network to increase dramatically.

I do not think that BIP110 changes Bitcoin’s censorship resistance in any meaningful way, and I believe it is needed to close a form of misuse of Bitcoin that was not previously possible. Because of the increasingly centralized block creation within mining, it is possible to route data around the node network entirely. You can have all nodes running strict policies, but if a single mining pool finds a large share of blocks and there is a direct way to send data to them, then those policies cannot effectively stop the data from entering the blockchain. This is exactly why BIP110 tries to introduce limitations that make abuse harder. In Bitcoin’s early days, this attack surface barely existed because nobody knew who would find the next block. Transactions had to propagate through the node network first, which meant node policy actually had strong influence. Today, with large mining pools, private transaction submission, and centralized block template creation, that dynamic has changed significantly. Once there is a reliable way to regularly store data on Bitcoin, projects begin forming around it and attract investors who increasingly fill Bitcoin with spam-like usage. Core’s policy changes contributed to a situation where nearly every block become completely filled with this type of data usage. If an individual miner refuses to include it, they put themselves at a financial disadvantage compared to other mining pools that continue accepting the fees.