The Bitcoin hard fork launched on September 1, initiated by prominent developer Luke Dashjr, has failed spectacularly. The network, switched to the BLAKE2b algorithm, failed to attract any significant computing power. The industry effectively ignored the event, and Blockstream CEO Adam Back delivered a concise and biting verdict.
Ambitions vs. Reality
The essence of Dashjr's BIP-110 proposal was a radical purge of Bitcoin blocks from all data unrelated to payments. Supporters of the idea, who dubbed the main network "Spamcoin," hoped to restore the ability to mine on ordinary computers. However, the market perceived the network split on September 1 as an unfortunate misunderstanding, nothing more.
This is not the first such attempt. In August, the BIP-110 offshoot existed for only two blocks, after which miners of the OCEAN pool, whose power was redirected to the new fork without explicit consent, demanded a return to the previous course. History repeats itself with alarming precision.
Technological Dead End
The key problem is the change of the hashing algorithm. The transition from SHA-256 to BLAKE2b automatically cuts off the entire industrial base of ASIC miners on which Bitcoin's security rests. Without specialized equipment, the new network instantly lost hashrate, making it vulnerable and uninteresting to professionals.
Adam Back, commenting on the situation on social network X, was brief: "You live by the fork, you die by the fork." In this phrase lies the whole essence of what is happening. Dashjr himself, however, continues to insist that it is his secondary chain that is the "real Bitcoin," claiming that the BTC ticker belonged to the original network for more than ten years, and now it has "moved" to BLAKE2b. Network data suggests otherwise.
Dashjr made similar statements in August through his Bitcoin Knots project, and then former Ripple CTO David Schwartz called them nonsense. The market again did not react: the main network operated without interruptions, and BTC traded near the $76,900 mark.
Market Verdict
Major exchanges did not even bother to add the new asset. Only one small test platform opened order acceptance under the ticker BTCB2, since the network has no official designation yet. Demand turned out to be negligible: the best bid did not rise above $82, which is almost 900 times lower than the Bitcoin rate. At the same time, the minimum asking price was $190. A spread of 131.7% is clear evidence of the absence of real trading and liquidity.
My analysis: This episode is yet another confirmation that technical perfection without economic and social consensus is worth nothing. Attempts to "improve" Bitcoin through hard splits without the support of miners and exchanges are doomed. The Bitcoin network is not only code but also a huge industry that cannot be reshaped single-handedly. Investors should view such forks solely as noise that does not affect the fundamental value of the first cryptocurrency.