The decentralized nature of the Bitcoin network was put to a practical test this past weekend when Simple Mining, a participant in the Ocean mining pool, utilized specialized software to diverge from the pool’s default signaling for a controversial upgrade. While the Ocean mining pool had previously committed to supporting Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110) by default, Simple Mining leveraged the DATUM protocol to produce block 961,634 on the main Bitcoin chain, explicitly choosing not to signal for the proposal. This move underscored a growing shift toward miner autonomy and highlighted the technical mechanisms now available to individual hashing entities to override the collective decisions of mining pool operators.
The event took place against the backdrop of a minor chain split triggered by BIP-110, a proposal designed to temporarily restrict the storage of non-financial data, such as images and text inscriptions, within the Bitcoin blockchain. As the minority branch of the network struggled to maintain momentum, the decision by Simple Mining to remain on the dominant chain demonstrated the limitations of pool-wide mandates when miners are equipped with decentralized block-template construction tools.
The Technical Context of BIP-110 and the Ordinals Debate
BIP-110 represents one of the more contentious technical proposals in recent Bitcoin history. Its primary objective is to implement a one-year moratorium on the inclusion of non-financial data in Bitcoin transactions. This specifically targets the "Ordinals" protocol and "Inscriptions," which have allowed users to embed digital artifacts directly into the witness data of Bitcoin transactions. Proponents of BIP-110 argue that such data constitutes "blockchain bloat" or "spam," which increases the costs of running a full node and distracts from Bitcoin’s primary mission as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system.
Opponents of the proposal, however, view any attempt to filter transaction types as a form of censorship. They argue that as long as a user pays the required transaction fee, the network should remain neutral regarding the content of the data being transmitted. Furthermore, many miners have become financially reliant on the increased fee revenue generated by the Ordinals ecosystem, making the adoption of BIP-110 a potentially disadvantageous economic move for the mining industry.
The proposal sought to activate via a miner-signaling mechanism, requiring a 55% threshold of hashrate support to take effect. However, support for the measure remained marginal throughout the signaling period.
Ocean Mining Pool and the Implementation of DATUM
The Ocean mining pool, co-founded by longtime Bitcoin developer Luke Dashjr, has been a vocal proponent of BIP-110. In July 2026, Ocean announced that it would begin signaling for the proposal by default for all miners connected to its infrastructure. Given Ocean’s ideological alignment with the "small block" and "anti-spam" factions of the Bitcoin community, the move was seen as an attempt to consolidate hashrate in favor of the moratorium.
However, Ocean is distinct from traditional mining pools due to its implementation of the DATUM (Decentralized Alternative Template User Mechanism) protocol. In a standard mining pool arrangement, the pool operator constructs the "block template"—the list of transactions and the specific software signals included in a block—and sends it to individual miners to solve. This centralizes power in the hands of the pool operator, who can effectively decide which transactions are included and which upgrades are supported.
DATUM, which shares similarities with the Stratum V2 protocol, flips this dynamic. It allows individual miners to construct their own block templates locally. While the miner still contributes their computational power (hashrate) to the pool to smooth out rewards, they retain total control over the contents of the blocks they find. This decentralized approach was designed to prevent pool-level censorship and to ensure that Bitcoin’s hashrate remains distributed in its decision-making capacity.
Chronology of the BIP-110 Chain Split
The attempt to activate BIP-110 reached a critical juncture on Saturday, August 8, 2026. The signaling period revealed that the proposal lacked broad industry consensus. According to data from various network monitors, support for BIP-110 peaked at approximately 2.6% of the total network hashrate, far below the 55% required for a smooth transition.
Despite this lack of support, a small number of nodes and miners running BIP-110-compatible software began to enforce the new rules at block 961,632. This created a minority chain that rejected any blocks not carrying the BIP-110 signal. The first block on this minority branch was produced by a miner using the Ocean pool who chose to follow the pool’s default signaling.
The timeline of the split and subsequent failure is as follows:
- Block 961,631: The last block accepted by both the main Bitcoin chain and the BIP-110 minority chain.
- Block 961,632: The BIP-110 chain diverged. A miner signaling for the proposal produced a block that was accepted by BIP-110 nodes but ignored by the rest of the network.
- Block 961,633: The minority chain managed to produce one additional block before its limited hashrate caused block production times to slow significantly.
- Block 961,634: Simple Mining, using Ocean’s DATUM protocol, produced a block on the main chain. By explicitly choosing not to signal for BIP-110, Simple Mining ensured its block was accepted by the vast majority of the network, further isolating the minority chain.
By Monday, August 10, the main Bitcoin chain had advanced to block 961,725, while the BIP-110 branch remained stalled at block 961,633. With the main chain more than 200 blocks ahead, the BIP-110 effort effectively collapsed, as the minority chain lacked the economic support and hashing power to remain viable.
Simple Mining’s Stance and Industry Reaction
Following the production of block 961,634, Simple Mining issued a statement via social media to clarify its position. The company emphasized that its decision was based on a realistic assessment of the proposal’s viability and a commitment to the integrity of the main chain.
"Hashrate is a vote you cannot fake, and we decided the proposal wasn’t worth following," Simple Mining stated. The company highlighted that Ocean’s DATUM protocol was the essential tool that allowed them to exercise this choice. "Ocean’s DATUM protocol gave us the ability to build our own block. We chose not to signal and the chain extended on our block."
This statement resonated with proponents of mining decentralization, who viewed the event as a successful "field test" for protocols like DATUM and Stratum V2. The fact that a miner could remain part of a pool while actively countering that pool’s default policy is seen as a major milestone in reducing the influence of large mining pool operators over Bitcoin’s consensus rules.
Observers within the Bitcoin community noted that the failure of BIP-110 was predictable given the economic incentives at play. Most large-scale mining operations, such as Foundry USA and AntPool, which collectively control more than 50% of the network hashrate, did not signal for the proposal. For these operators, the revenue generated by Inscriptions and the risk of a chain split outweighed the perceived benefits of filtering non-financial data.
Broader Implications for Bitcoin Governance
The failure of BIP-110 and the role played by Simple Mining offer several key insights into the current state of Bitcoin governance and the evolution of the mining industry.
1. The Resilience of the Main Chain
The rapid divergence and subsequent stalling of the BIP-110 branch demonstrate the extreme difficulty of implementing a "contentious soft fork" without overwhelming consensus. Bitcoin’s consensus mechanism is designed to favor the chain with the most cumulative proof-of-work. When a proposal like BIP-110 fails to secure even 5% of the hashrate, the resulting minority chain becomes functionally unusable almost immediately due to the lack of hashing power to find blocks at the required difficulty level.
2. The Shift Toward Miner Autonomy
Historically, mining pools have acted as centralized proxies for their participants. If a pool operator decided to support a fork, all miners in that pool were effectively forced to follow suit unless they manually switched to a different pool. The use of DATUM by Simple Mining proves that this dynamic is changing. As more miners adopt decentralized block-construction protocols, the power of pool operators to dictate network upgrades will continue to diminish.
3. The Economic Reality of Block Space
The BIP-110 saga highlights the ongoing tension between those who view Bitcoin as a "pure" financial network and those who view it as a neutral marketplace for block space. The mining industry has largely signaled that it prefers the latter. As long as block space is a scarce resource, miners are incentivized to include the highest-paying transactions, regardless of whether those transactions contain a payment or a digital image.
4. The Future of "Anti-Spam" Measures
While BIP-110 failed to gain traction, the debate over blockchain bloat is unlikely to disappear. However, the outcome of this weekend’s events suggests that any future attempts to limit data on the Bitcoin blockchain will require a different approach—one that likely involves voluntary node-level filtering rather than a forced protocol-level change that lacks miner support.
Conclusion
The events surrounding block 961,634 serve as a landmark case study in the decentralized governance of Bitcoin. By leveraging the DATUM protocol, Simple Mining was able to prioritize the stability of the main chain over the ideological preferences of its mining pool, Ocean. This act of individual miner sovereignty not only contributed to the failure of the BIP-110 split but also reinforced the principle that hashrate remains the ultimate arbiter of truth in the Bitcoin network.
As the network continues to evolve, the tools for decentralized block production will likely become standard, further insulating Bitcoin from centralized pressure points and ensuring that the network’s path is determined by a broad, unforgeable consensus of global participants. For now, the main Bitcoin chain continues to operate without the restrictions proposed by BIP-110, maintaining its status as a permissionless and neutral platform for all types of data and transactions.
