One man against the entire Bitcoin network: Why Luke Dashjr's "holy war" is doomed to fail
August 8, block height 961,632.
The Bitcoin network split.
But this is not the kind of "fork" you might imagine—no two armies clashing head-on, evenly matched. This is a "suicidal charge" by one man, one mining pool, two chains.
Nodes supporting BIP-110 rejected blocks without the support signal at block 961,632.
Then what?
The main chain kept moving forward. Antpool mined blocks accepted by the mainnet.
On the BIP-110 side—a mining pool called Roughnecks mined two blocks. Then, nothing.
As of August 9, the main chain advanced to block 961,651, while the BIP-110 fork chain remained at 961,633.
18 blocks behind.
Some reports say the gap widened to 20 or 26 blocks.
No matter the number, the meaning is the same: this forked chain is being left behind by the main chain.
And the person driving all this is Luke Dashjr.
A veteran figure among Bitcoin core developers. Involved in Bitcoin development since 2009, with one of the highest code contribution volumes. A true Bitcoin old-timer.
But he is also the most radical opponent of BRC-20 and inscriptions in the community.
In his view, inscriptions, BRC-20, Runes—all are "junk transactions." Images, text, videos stuffed into Bitcoin blocks, taking up space and pushing fees higher.
He says these are bugs, not features.
He wants to fix this "bug."
In December 2025, BIP-110 was proposed.
The plan is simple and blunt: limit non-financial data writes in Bitcoin transactions within one year.
Activation threshold? 55% miner support.
Then?
Support never exceeded 1%.
Out of 9,066 blocks since May 1, 2026, only 38 signaled support, about 0.42%.
By August, with the mandatory signaling window open, support barely climbed to 2.45%-2.6%.
The 55% threshold is not even close.
Out of 102,674 nodes in the entire community, only 15,035 are willing to enforce BIP-110, about 14.64%.
What does this mean?
85% of nodes and 98% of miners say "no" to Luke.
But Luke does not back down.
In July, calls to cancel BIP-110 grew louder in the community. Luke's only response was:
"It's too late to cancel now."
He even added: "This is just the beginning."
One man, facing opposition from the entire community—no retreat, no compromise.
Who opposes him?
Michael Saylor: published "110 Reasons Against BIP-110." He said, "Bitcoin's rules are neutral and should remain neutral. Using consensus changes to suppress a controversial but currently valid transaction category sets a dangerous precedent."
Adam Back: CEO of Blockstream. He said BIP-110 essentially "tries to constrain others' behavior through consensus-layer means, contradicting Bitcoin's core properties of decentralization and permissionlessness."
Jameson Lopp: co-founder of Casa. He called BIP-110 "reckless, irrational, and doomed to fail."
Fishpool co-founder Wang Chun also clearly opposed it.
The entire Bitcoin OG circle almost unanimously stood against Luke.
After the fork, the narrative spiraled out of control.
Luke warned on X: "Antpool seems to be attacking Bitcoin. Hold on, everyone."
He also said: "If you haven't upgraded to Bitcoin Knots, you face a double-spend attack risk aided by Foundry and Antpool. Upgrade ASAP to avoid receiving counterfeit Bitcoin."
And BIP-110's anonymous author Dathon Ohm was more direct: "The Bitcoin network is currently under attack by hostile miners."
From "technical upgrade" to "hostile attack"—the narrative slid fully into conspiracy theory.
More ironically, even Ocean's own hash power did not fully follow.
Luke is CTO of the Ocean mining pool. Early BIP-110 signals came largely from Ocean and DATUM miners.
But after the fork, Simple Mining—hash power pointing to Ocean's hosted miners—mined block 961,634 on the main chain.
Ocean-related hash power did not all follow Ocean's CTO.
Even more fatal—lack of replay protection.
Ledger issued an urgent warning: BIP-110 lacks built-in replay protection.
What does this mean? If you sign transactions on the forked chain, you might inadvertently spend your BTC on the main chain as well.
Ledger directly advises: do not claim any forked coins before replay protection is added to the BIP-110 chain.
Even hardware wallets dare not let you touch this chain.
Luke Dashjr's concerns are not without reason.
Inscriptions do occupy block space and push fees higher. Bitcoin mainnet congestion is felt by ordinary users.
But his solution—to forcibly restrict via consensus layer—was not accepted by the community.
Bitcoin's evolution has never relied on one person's obsession.
It depends on consensus among millions of nodes, countless miners, and the entire ecosystem.
You can propose changes. But you cannot force changes.
This is Bitcoin's charm—
Anyone can propose a BIP.
But no one can force others to enforce it.
Luke Dashjr can write code, fork, and warn of "double-spend attacks."
But 85% of nodes won't follow, 98% of miners don't support, hardware wallets don't recommend, exchanges don't integrate.
One man's holy war cannot defeat a decentralized network.
You may disagree with Luke's plan. But you should not deny his original intention.
He truly believes—Bitcoin should be pure money, not a playground for images, text, and memes.
$BTC$ETH#比特币BIP-110提案遇冷，分叉链落后主网
Disclaimer: OKX Orbit content is provided for informational purposes only. Learn more
