A public exchange on X between Ripple CTO emeritus David Schwartz and a BIP-110 supporter has drawn attention to ongoing efforts to launch an independent Bitcoin chain using the BLAKE2b mining algorithm. The discussion centers on whether creating a separate network after an earlier failed proposal constitutes an attack or a legitimate alternative path.

The exchange began when an X user compared the planned BLAKE2b chain to previous Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV forks, describing it as an attack on Bitcoin. BIP-110 supporter Loogart rejected the characterization. He stated that the group had objected to the direction of Bitcoin Core, been told to fork, selected a different proof-of-work system, and begun building its own chain voluntarily.

Loogart responded that the group had accepted defeat in its effort on the existing network and continued development elsewhere. He argued that open dialogue, soft forks, and hard forks remain voluntary options that force no one to participate.

Schwartz focused on the language describing Bitcoin as a legacy chain requiring a fix by one group of participants. His response underscored the assumption that the dominant network was broken or improperly governed. Schwartz’s comments represent his personal views. Neither Ripple nor the XRP Ledger has any technical role in BIP-110 or the proposed chain.

Background on BIP-110 and the Stalled Minority Chain

BIP-110 proposed a temporary soft fork to restrict non-financial data on Bitcoin. The rules targeted large OP_RETURN outputs, certain script formats, and contiguous arbitrary data exceeding 256 bytes. Supporters said the limits would ease storage burdens on node operators and protect Bitcoin’s monetary focus. Critics countered that fees and existing node policies already govern block-space use.

When the mandatory phase began, an enforcing minority branch separated from the dominant chain. It produced only two blocks in roughly eight hours before stalling due to insufficient mining support. Miner signaling for BIP-110 reached about 2.53 percent, far below levels needed for broad adoption. Nearly all established mining power remained on the main network.

The earlier branch exposed the difficulty of sustaining an alternative without meaningful hash power. Infrastructure support proved limited, leaving the minority chain unable to maintain consistent block production.

The Planned BLAKE2b Chain and Its Differences

Supporters of the earlier effort, including developer Luke Dashjr, are preparing a separate hard-fork network that replaces Bitcoin’s SHA-256d mining algorithm with BLAKE2b. The change is intended to free the new chain from dependence on miners securing the dominant Bitcoin network. Existing SHA-256 mining hardware cannot simply redirect hash power to BLAKE2b, requiring a new set of participants.

A target launch date of September 1 has been set. Developers arranged a rehearsal ahead of the date. A successful test could be incorporated into a Bitcoin Knots release, while technical issues could prompt further delays and a reset. Reports indicate the final mainnet activation height had not been locked in before the rehearsal, making the date a target rather than a fixed deadline.

Some hardware designed for Sia’s version of BLAKE2b may offer compatibility, yet available equipment alone does not guarantee sufficient mining commitment. The project remains distinct from simply activating BIP-110 rules on the existing Bitcoin network.

Infrastructure and Practical Challenges

No major cryptocurrency exchange, mainstream wallet provider, or Lightning implementation has publicly committed support for the BLAKE2b chain ahead of the planned launch. Without such backing, any forked coins risk limited liquidity, trading venues, and accessibility in the early stages.

Technical differences add further hurdles. BLAKE2b block headers differ from Bitcoin’s current format, so existing light clients and indexers may not recognize the new chain automatically. Replay protection is another consideration. Transactions valid on both networks could potentially be repeated across chains unless users take steps to separate coins or apply other safeguards.

The earlier BIP-110 minority chain’s rapid stall after only two blocks illustrates the risks of limited participation. Attracting reliable miners, developers, wallets, exchanges, and users will determine whether the BLAKE2b network can establish consistent block production, security, and commercial relevance.

Claims that the new chain will replace, repair, or significantly affect Bitcoin remain contested forecasts rather than demonstrated outcomes. The practical impact will depend on actual post-launch adoption of mining power, infrastructure, and market support.