BIP-110 Bitcoin branch stalls after two blocks as gap widens

abstrak:Bitcoin‘s BIP-110-enforcing branch stalled at block 961,633 after producing just two blocks, while the normal chain advanced to 961,721, leaving an 88-block gap. The first blocks came from the pseudonymous group Roughnecks using Ocean’s DATUM mining protocol after BIP-110 entered mandatory signaling at block 961,632, though only 2.53% of prior blocks signaled support. Under BIP-110, enforcing nodes reject non-signaling blocks, and the branch must finish its adjustment period before difficulty can change, slowing progress without more hashpower. Critics include Michael Saylor, who backs the goals but warns it threatens neutral rules, and Adam Back, who says the consensus change could hurt credibility and leave some UTXOs unspendable.

Bitcoins BIP-110-enforcing branch stalled at block 961,633 on Sunday after producing only two blocks, while the non-enforcing chain advanced to 961,721, widening the gap to 88 blocks.

According to the BIP-110 monitor, updated at 10:19 am UTC, the branch‘s latest block had been mined about 12 hours earlier. Ocean records show that a pseudonymous mining group called Roughnecks produced the branch’s first two blocks using Oceans Decentralized Alternative Templates for Universal Mining (DATUM) mining protocol.

The divergence began after BIP-110 entered mandatory signaling at block 961,632 on Saturday. Only 51 of the preceding 2,016 blocks, or 2.53%, signaled support. During this window, BIP-110 nodes reject blocks that do not signal through version bit 4, while ordinary Bitcoin nodes accept both signaling and non-signaling blocks.

Under the proposal, mandatory signaling continues through block 963,647. The enforcing branch must mine through the remainder of the 2,016-block adjustment period before its difficulty can adjust, making progress slow without substantially more hashpower.

BIP-110 has faced opposition from prominent Bitcoin advocates. Strategy executive chairman Michael Saylor said he shared the proposal‘s objectives but argued that its approach threatened Bitcoin’s neutral rules and consensus.

Blockstream CEO Adam Back warned that the consensus-level change could damage Bitcoins credibility and potentially make certain unspent transaction outputs unspendable.

Disclaimer

Ang mga pananaw sa artikulong ito ay kumakatawan lamang sa mga personal na pananaw ng may-akda at hindi bumubuo ng payo sa pamumuhunan para sa platform na ito. Ang platform na ito ay hindi ginagarantiyahan ang kawastuhan, pagkakumpleto at pagiging maagap na impormasyon ng artikulo, o mananagot din para sa anumang pagkawala na sanhi ng paggamit o pag-asa ng impormasyon ng artikulo.
Nakaraang post

Ang pagkaantala ba ng Clarity ay isang biyaya na nakabalatkayo?: Kalagayan ng Crypto

Susunod

US Export Ban Para Sana Pahinain AI ng China, Pero Naitulak Pang Maging Pinakamahalagang Kumpanya