Ripple CTO Explains Bitcoin Fork Logic: 'Let Everyone Choose'
In brief
- Schwartz: hard forks let users choose which ruleset to follow
- BIP-110 proposed one-year ban on arbitrary Bitcoin transaction data
- Minority chain supporting BIP-110 collapsed after just two blocks
The Fork as a Choice Mechanism
Schwartz stated that the point of a fork is to let everyone choose which side of the fork they want to interact with. His comments responded to an X user who questioned the value of a new proof-of-work fork, citing Bitcoin Cash and the BIP-110 proposal.
The logic is straightforward. If the majority of users and miners prefer one ruleset, that chain becomes the dominant ledger. Schwartz argued that if people migrate from the losing side to the winning side, it is because they realize the winning side's rules produce better results. The fork itself is the mechanism through which the network discovers which rules the market actually wants.
BIP-110 and the Two-Block Minority
This theory played out in real time last week. A minority chain created when BIP-110 supporters split from Bitcoin lasted just two blocks. The proposal was short-lived both on-chain and in community discourse.
BIP-110, formally titled the Reduced Data Temporary Softfork, was created by pseudonymous developer Dathon Ohm with input from Luke Dashjr. Its goal was narrow: restrict what data could be embedded in transactions. It called for a one-year consensus-level restriction on arbitrary data in Bitcoin transactions, including Ordinals inscriptions, BRC-20, Runes, and oversized OP_RETURN.
The restrictions were granular. The proposal contained seven rules capping most outputs at 34 bytes, OP_RETURN at 83 bytes, and data pushes at 256 bytes, plus restrictions on Taproot annexes and control blocks. Despite the technical specificity, the fork found almost no support. The network spoke clearly: it didn't want to limit data layers.
Schwartz's framing reframes forks as feature, not bug. They're how decentralized systems resolve irreconcilable disagreements. You don't convince the other side. You let the ledger decide.
