Morning Edition · Sunday, August 30, 2026Published at 1:48 AM EDT · New York
Luke Dashjr told miners using the existing SHA-256 hardware to stop ahead of the rehearsal, which would run the breakaway chain on BLAKE2b after the first attempt stalled two blocks in.

Supporters of Bitcoin Knots, the alternative Bitcoin client maintained by developer Luke Dashjr, are preparing a second attempt at a breakaway chain after the first one stopped producing blocks almost immediately. Dashjr on August 29 told miners running standard SHA-256 hardware to stop mining ahead of an August 30 test that would replace Bitcoin's proof-of-work function with BLAKE2b on the proposed network. The substitution is deliberate. It removes the fork's dependence on the industrial mining fleet that has declined to support it.
The dispute behind the fork is about what belongs in a Bitcoin block. Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110), called the Reduced Data Temporary Soft Fork, would limit arbitrary non-financial data in transactions for one year. Miner signaling for it reached roughly 2.56 percent against a threshold of 1,109 blocks out of 2,016, so the rule never gained the hash power that a soft fork needs to hold. Developer Chris Guida then rebased Dashjr's 2017 proof-of-work hard-fork code onto current Knots as a contingency if miners refused.
CryptoSlate reports that the rehearsal still lacks settled activation parameters, a disclosed day-one hash rate, named exchange and service policies, and universal replay protection. Replay protection matters most for ordinary holders. Without it, a transaction broadcast on one chain can be rebroadcast on the other, and users can lose coins they intended to keep on a single side of a split.
The episode is a live measurement of where authority sits in Bitcoin. A long-standing developer can write and ship consensus code, but he cannot move hash power, and the group willing to abandon SHA-256 to escape that constraint is, so far, small. Nothing about the exercise threatens the main chain's security. It does test the claim that client diversity gives dissenting developers a real path to change the rules.
Start a discussion in Townsquare.
More from this edition
Incumbent SHA-256 miners and the exchanges that list bitcoin, because each failed fork attempt confirms that hash power and listing decisions, not client maintainers, set the rules and therefore protect the value of installed mining capital.
The article omits that other developers removed Luke Dashjr as a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal editor on August 10 citing conflict of interest over BIP-110, and that BLAKE2b was reportedly selected by random draw rather than on technical merit, both of which bear on how the fork's proponents characterize their own legitimacy.
An open-source-intelligence read of how likely this story is true with its real nuance, not a judgment of any outlet. It assesses the claim, weighing independent and adversarial reporting. How we label confidence.
What this means
Bitcoin's data-policy fight is now producing running code rather than mailing-list argument, and each attempt reveals the same balance of power: miners and exchanges decide which chain has value, not client maintainers. Holders are exposed mainly through operational risk, because a split without universal replay protection can cost coins to careless transactions, and exchanges must publish handling policies before any test chain draws liquidity. Either the BLAKE2b rehearsal again fails to sustain blocks, confirming that dissent has no economic base, or it survives with named services supporting it, which would create the first durable competing Bitcoin ruleset since 2017.
What to watch
Observations to monitor, not financial advice.
Synthesized from: CryptoSlate · TFTC · Crypto Briefing
Comments
0No comments yet.