The unsuccessful implementation of the BIP-110 soft fork serves as a clear example of why replicating the original conditions of Bitcoin's inception is nearly impossible today. This perspective was shared by Giacomo Zucco, director of Plan B Network, during a discussion on the podcast The Starting Block.

Why Bitcoin BIP-110 failed - ft Giacomo Zucco https://t.co/fomrEgb4Ok

— The Block (@TheBlockCo) August 12, 2026

BIP-110 aimed to modify consensus rules to tackle transactions that its proponents classified as "spam." However, it failed to garner sufficient support, leading to nodes that adopted the new rules splitting off into an independent branch with a minimal hash rate.

Luke Dash Jr., one of the most vocal advocates for BIP-110, attempted to keep the new blockchain functional, including through a change in the proof-of-work algorithm. According to Zucco, Dash planned to select a new algorithm randomly based on a block hash from Testnet4, but miners began manipulating blocks to fit the desired symbol, forcing a halt and restart of the experiment.

“All management became centralized around one individual. He was literally issuing commands via Discord — this is absolute centralization, with no room for more. This clearly demonstrates that reproducing Bitcoin in an honest way is simply impossible today,” Zucco stated.

He contrasted this scenario with the early years of Bitcoin, noting that the network developed without the current scrutiny from authorities, speculators, and others seeking advantages.

“Bitcoin was created and sustained for several years away from market attention, governments, state agencies, intentional interference, speculators, excessive traders, trolls, and people who just want to disrupt the process for fun,” he explained.

Zucco referred to this unique set of circumstances as the "immaculate conception" of Bitcoin, emphasizing that it is no longer possible to replicate such a scenario today.

“Moral Panic”

He described BIP-110 as a "very complex social phenomenon" intertwined with several internal community conflicts, including:

  • debates over the nature of "spam";
  • issues surrounding Bitcoin Core;
  • the distribution of roles between nodes and miners.

While Zucco acknowledged that some discussions were beneficial, particularly regarding the appropriateness of arbitrary data in the blockchain, he criticized the argument for urgent changes due to potential illegal content and the legal risks for node operators:

“This created a false sense of urgency [...] and pushed people to act as if something needed to be done right now.”

He argued that such rhetoric shifts the technical or economic debate into a different realm, where calls to "save Bitcoin at the cost of concessions" signal an impending fork and replace rational discourse with panic-driven sentiments.

Zucco Critiques Removal of Dash Jr.

Amid the BIP-110 conflict, developers proposed to remove Dash Jr. from his position as editor of Bitcoin proposals. On August 11, he was dismissed for overstepping his authority. Zucco criticized this decision, calling it "the wrong move at the wrong time."

“This doesn’t produce any substantial or meaningful effect and looks like retribution. Retribution for being wrong,” the expert commented.

He believes that the removal will only strengthen the arguments of BIP-110 supporters, who view the development process of the first cryptocurrency as centralized.

It is worth noting that in February, cryptopunk Adam Back characterized the proposal as an attack on the reputation of digital gold and a “Lynch trial.”