The former Chief Technical Officer, Ripple David Schwartz, recently participated in a bitcoin fork discussion on platform X in response to the question of the relevance of the new PoW fork. In his view, the effect of the split was not to bridge all differences, but to allow participants to choose between different rules.

Schwartz talks about the fork.

The discussion started with a user questioning the value of the new PoW. It was argued that, even if the fork dealt with such surface issues as how much of the Internet waste trade, the new chain might eventually face governance difficulties similar to those of the old chain.

Schwartz's explanation for this is more direct. He stated that the focus of the split was to allow each party to choose its own side of the interaction. If participants who were otherwise in the “failed party” then turned to the “winner”, it was usually because the rules of the latter were more in line with their preferences.

The BIP-110 minority chain survives only two blocks.

This discussion is also related to the recent dispute over the bitcoin swipe. Last Saturday, a bitcoin minority chain supporting BIP-110 maintained only two blocks after the break-up, and could not continue to expand thereafter.

BIP-110, fully known as Reduced Data Temporary Softfork, was proposed by pseudonym developer Dathon Ohm, and Luke Dashjr, author of Bitcoin Knots node software, was involved in the idea. The proposal calls for a one-year limit on the inclusion of arbitrary data in TT transactions at the level of consensus.

The proposal focuses on limiting data along the chain

Those affected include the Ordinals motto, BRC-20, Runes and the larger OP RETURN data. According to the text information, BIP-110 has designed seven rules that are mainly limited to the output of transactions and the size of data for writing.

  • Most output is limited to 34 bytes
  • OP RETURN restricted to 83 bytes
  • Data transfer limit at 256 bytes

The proposal also places additional restrictions on Taproot annex and control block. As a result, this few chain attempts did not have a continuing impact, but the debate over whether Bitcoin should restrict the inclusion of non-payment data continued.