Luke Dashjr's attempt, one of the most well-known Bitcoin developers, to create a new hard fork under the banner of BIP-110 has failed spectacularly. The network launched on September 1, built on the BLAKE2b algorithm, attracted only a negligible share of computational power, and opinion leader Adam Back, CEO of Blockstream, has already delivered a verdict that is unlikely to please enthusiasts.
The essence of the conflict and reasons for failure
Dashjr's idea was to strip Bitcoin blocks of all data not related to payments, creating, in his view, a "pure" version of the first cryptocurrency. Project supporters even dubbed the main network "Spamcoin," hinting at its clutter. However, the market and miners perceived this differently, viewing the split that occurred on the first day of autumn as nothing more than noise.
The switch from the SHA-256 algorithm to BLAKE2b proved to be a fatal mistake. The entire industrial fleet of ASIC equipment, which had ensured Bitcoin's security for decades, became useless for the new chain. As a result, the fork's hashrate collapsed almost immediately after launch, and miners who had initially directed power there quickly lost interest.
Market and industry leaders' reaction
Adam Back, known for his skepticism toward such experiments, succinctly summed it up on social network X: "Live by the fork, die by the fork". This phrase perfectly reflects reality: attempts to create an alternative to Bitcoin rarely succeed without support from major players.
Dashjr himself, however, continues to insist that his secondary chain is the "real" Bitcoin, claiming that the BTC ticker belonged to the original network for over a decade and has now moved to BLAKE2b. Yet blockchain data suggests otherwise: the main network operates without issues, and BTC trades near the $76,900 mark, unresponsive to these statements.
Trading and liquidity: a dead market
Major exchanges were in no hurry to list the new coin. Only a small test platform opened order acceptance under the ticker BTCB2, as the network still has no official designation. Liquidity there turned out to be minimal: the best bid did not exceed $82, almost 900 times lower than Bitcoin's rate, with a spread gap to the ask of 131.7%. This is a clear sign that there is no real trading and investor interest is absent.
My view: this episode once again demonstrates the utopian nature of attempts to change Bitcoin "from the top down" without considering miners' economic incentives. As long as the network generates income, its security and decentralization will be ensured by those who see profit in it. Forks born from ideological disagreements rather than real market needs are doomed to oblivion.