The Bitcoin hard fork launched on September 1, initiated by well-known developer Luke Dashjr, has failed spectacularly. Despite loud claims about returning to the "true" ideals of decentralization, the new network based on the BLAKE2b algorithm failed to attract any significant support from miners and exchanges. In essence, we are witnessing yet another attempt at a radical protocol change that ended in almost complete disregard from the industry.
The essence of the BIP-110 proposal was to "clean" Bitcoin blocks of all data not related to payments. Dashjr himself and his supporters dubbed the main network "Spamcoin," claiming it had deviated from its original purpose. However, the overwhelming majority of market participants viewed the network split as a waste of time and resources.
Why did the hard fork fail?
This is not the first such attempt. Back in August, an alternative branch with BIP-110 existed for only two blocks, after which miners of the OCEAN pool, whose hashing power was redirected to the new fork without explicit consent, demanded everything be reverted. History repeats itself with a disheartening regularity.
The key problem was the change of the hashing algorithm. The transition from SHA-256 to BLAKE2b automatically rendered useless all specialized ASIC miners on which the entire industry relies. As a result, the hash rate of the new chain collapsed almost immediately after launch — industrial equipment is simply not suitable for it. This decision isolated the fork from the real mining sector, leaving it on the sidelines of progress.
Reaction of industry leaders
Blockstream CEO Adam Back, known for his uncompromising stance, summed it up in one phrase: "Live by the fork, die by the fork." In this brief but succinct statement lies the whole essence of what is happening. Attempts to create a "more correct" Bitcoin typically end up creating a low-value altcoin.
Dashjr himself, however, continues to insist that it is his secondary chain that is the "real" Bitcoin. He claims that the BTC ticker belonged to the original network for more than ten years, and now it has "moved" to BLAKE2b. However, network data suggests otherwise: the main chain operates without issues, and the BTC price remains stable near the $76,900 mark.
Major exchanges did not add the new coin, and only a small test platform opened order acceptance under the ticker BTCB2, as the network does not yet have an official designation. Buy orders for BTCB2 never rose above $82 — that is roughly 900 times less than the Bitcoin exchange rate. Meanwhile, the cheapest sell order stands at $190. This gap of 131.7% clearly demonstrates the complete absence of real trading and liquidity.
My view: This episode is a vivid confirmation that consensus in the Bitcoin network is not just a technical parameter but a complex socio-economic mechanism. Attempts to impose changes from above, without the support of miners, exchanges, and the community, are doomed to failure. The market votes with hash rate and liquidity, and this time it unequivocally chose the status quo, rejecting yet another utopia.