As an attempt to activate BIP-110 failed and some Bitcoin nodes broke away from the main chain, Ripple veteran developer and XRP Ledger (XRPL) designer David Schwartz (데이비드 슈워츠) directly criticised Bitcoin Knots' explanation of the incident. Schwartz said calling the situation an attack on the Bitcoin network distorts the context of what happened.

On Aug. 11 local time, blockchain media outlet U.Today reported that Schwartz raised criticism on X, formerly Twitter, targeting a post by Bitcoin Knots.

He pushed back in strong terms against Bitcoin Knots describing the incident as an "attack on the Bitcoin network." Schwartz said that regardless of views for or against BIP-110, such a claim should be criticised.

The controversy began with BIP-110, which Bitcoin Knots pursued via a soft fork. Some nodes configured to enforce BIP-110 kept applying its rules even after the proposal failed to activate, forming a separate chain from the main Bitcoin chain supported by most miners.

Earlier, the Bitcoin Knots account claimed the Bitcoin network was under attack and warned that block production speed was dropping sharply. It also advised users not to downgrade the software and not to move to other node implementations that Bitcoin Knots judged unsafe.

But the context presented in the Bitcoin community differed. It said the incident did not damage the entire Bitcoin network due to an external attack, but resulted from a small number of nodes enforcing BIP-110 splitting from the main chain.

The chain split was reported to have occurred at block 961,632. After that, the minority chain applying BIP-110 received almost no support from miners and the gap with the main chain widened quickly. When the typical Bitcoin chain had progressed to block 961,681, the chain followed by nodes enforcing BIP-110 was reported to have remained at block 961,633. While the main chain added dozens of blocks, the minority chain effectively stood still.

The difference was also clear in block intervals. Bitcoin's average block time is about 10 minutes, but on the BIP-110 minority chain the block interval was reported to have stretched to hours. This showed that mining power devoted to that chain was extremely limited.

As a result, the main chain followed by most miners and nodes on the current Bitcoin network is continuing block production normally. The disputed chain split can be seen as stemming not from a disruption caused by an attack on Bitcoin as a whole, but from a small number of nodes enforcing specific rules moving in a different direction from the rules of the majority chain.

Even so, Bitcoin Knots has maintained its position. The project recommended that users who downgraded the software upgrade again to the latest version, and said it is preparing mitigation strategies to restore the status of the affected chain.

Bitcoin Knots also presented a plan to select a new proof-of-work (PoW) algorithm through a deterministic random procedure. This is seen as a way to address sustainability and security issues of the currently forked minority chain.

This dispute is less about whether the Bitcoin network itself has stopped or been damaged, and more about how to interpret a situation in which a set of minority nodes enforcing a specific soft-fork proposal split from the main chain.

Accordingly, a key point to watch going forward is whether the minority-chain recovery strategy being prepared by Bitcoin Knots can work in practice. Attention is also focused on how the plan to select a new proof-of-work algorithm through a deterministic random method will affect the chain's maintenance and security.

"Is the point of this to embarrass yourselves or to mislead people who don't understand the context? Regardless of how you feel about BIP-110, you should condemn this nonsense. https://t.co/3D0D0ZoYoB"