Simple Mining Rejects BIP‑110: DATUM Protocol Gives Block Control and Shifts Network Dynamics

At a pivotal moment for the Bitcoin network, Simple Mining openly rejected the BIP‑110 proposal, leveraging its own block‑selection authority via the DATUM protocol.

The Technical Backbone of BIP‑110 and Its Anticipated Impact

BIP‑110 is designed to block the embedding of non‑financial data (images, text, etc.) in Bitcoin transactions for a year. The upgrade required a 55% supermajority to pass, yet it peaked at just 2.6% support among miners.

Simple Mining’s Strategic Move and the DATUM Protocol

Through Ocean's pool, DATUM empowers an individual miner to decide which transactions go into a block and which signals it carries. Despite the pool’s default configuration to signal BIP‑110, Simple Mining produced block 961,634 without the BIP‑110 signal, exercising its autonomous control.

Market and Network Implications

■Hashrate functions as a “vote” that cannot be fabricated; Simple Mining declared, “our hashrate is a vote you cannot fake, and we decided the proposal wasn’t worth following.”

■The BIP‑110 supporting side‑chain produced blocks 961,632 and 961,633 before stalling, while the main chain continued generating blocks roughly every ten minutes.

■Ocean pool simultaneously mined on two opposing forks (BIP‑110‑supporting and non‑supporting), creating a split‑signal environment.

■Simple Mining’s stance underscores the low practical viability of BIP‑110 and highlights how mining power can directly shape signaling outcomes.

Future Scenarios and Risk Assessment

■Short‑term, the likelihood of BIP‑110 resurfacing is minimal; miners will continue to prioritize network stability over signaling costs.

■Mid‑term, protocols like DATUM could increase the risk of a “signal fragmentation” as miners demand greater autonomy over block composition.

■Long‑term, alternative solutions (sidechains, L2 protocols) may emerge to address data‑storage concerns, potentially supplanting proposals like BIP‑110.

Berk Arıcan – As Bitcoin’s consensus mechanisms evolve to grant miners more control over block creation and signaling, the feasibility and economic impact of protocol upgrades must be reassessed. The rise of miner‑centric tools like DATUM could spawn a new signal market, directly influencing block rewards and the pricing of hash power.