Ripple’s David Schwartz calls breakaway Bitcoin fork an attack after BIP-110 split

Bitcoin Community Split Over BIP-110

The debate centers on BIP-110, a controversial proposal originally intended as a user-activated soft fork designed to restrict non-financial data on the Bitcoin blockchain. This approach failed to secure significant support from miners, with the overwhelming majority of hash power continuing to back the existing SHA-256d-based network. Only a handful of blocks were mined by the dissenting group.

After it became clear they could not implement the soft fork, BIP-110 advocates pursued a hard fork. The proposed fork would swap Bitcoin’s SHA-256d hashing algorithm for BLAKE2b, introduce a new block header structure, and establish temporary block size limits. Organizers aimed to launch this chain at block 961,640, effectively repositioning it as an alternative continuation of Bitcoin.

In a key exchange, BIP-110 supporter loogart acknowledged the split by stating the group would “continue Bitcoin elsewhere,” insisting that the move reflected open dialogue rather than an act of aggression. Schwartz, however, questioned the language used, focusing on the assertion that the breakaway faction was seeking to “fix the legacy chain.”

Schwartz argued that redefining Bitcoin’s main chain as “legacy” moves the debate beyond good faith policy disagreements, positioning it as an outright attack rather than a legitimate upgrade.

He further emphasized that introducing terminology which frames the original network as defective undermines the foundational processes by which Bitcoin governance decisions are made.

Technical and Economic Realities of the Fork

By adopting the BLAKE2b proof-of-work algorithm, the would-be fork ensures that current Bitcoin ASIC miners cannot seamlessly join the new chain. This significant technical divergence is intended to distinguish the fork as a new cryptocurrency rather than a straightforward network upgrade adopted by consensus.

As of the planned launch, no major crypto exchanges, wallet providers, or Lightning Network services had confirmed support for the forked chain. SHA-256d Bitcoin retains overwhelming hashrate, liquidity, and institutional backing.

Schwartz’s position echoes past disputes, including the forks that led to Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV. In both instances, splinter groups claimed to preserve Bitcoin’s original vision, but the broader market continued to recognize SHA-256d-based Bitcoin as the legitimate network.

He stressed that initiating a hard fork after losing a soft-fork consensus vote, while labeling the original chain as broken, does not constitute responsible governance. Instead, Schwartz characterized this approach as a refusal to accept established rules and outcomes.

Ripple is a San Francisco-based blockchain company best known for its digital payment protocol and the XRP token. David Schwartz, as CTO emeritus, remains a prominent voice in blockchain debates and Bitcoin’s wider governance discussions.

Mini dictionary: BLAKE2b, a cryptographic hash function, is regarded for its speed and security, but is not compatible with existing Bitcoin mining equipment designed for SHA-256d. Thus, the adoption of BLAKE2b in a Bitcoin fork effectively divides the mining community and reduces the likelihood of continued support from incumbent miners.

Schwartz has clarified that while forking is permissible, branding the main chain as obsolete or broken after losing consensus is a form of refusal to acknowledge democratic process within decentralized networks.