David Schwartz (데이비드 슈워츠), a former chief technology officer of Ripple, publicly criticised the rationale behind a split-chain push by supporters of Bitcoin’s BIP-110.

On Aug. 31 (local time), blockchain outlet U.Today reported that Schwartz sparred with a BIP-110 supporter on X, formerly Twitter. He said the phrase “fixing the legacy chain” is itself based on a wrong premise.

The debate began when a user described BLAKE2b as “an attack on Bitcoin.” The user compared the move to past Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Bitcoin SV (BSV) forks. Here, BLAKE2b refers to a Bitcoin hard fork backed by developer Luke Dashjr. The chain would replace Bitcoin’s existing mining algorithm, SHA-256d, with BLAKE2b and is set to launch on Sept. 1.

A BIP-110 supporter, Lugat, countered by asking why pursuing a different proof-of-work method and an alternative chain should be considered an attack. He said he opposed the direction of Bitcoin Core, was told to fork and did so, choosing a different proof-of-work. He said he is now simply building his own chain. He added that all participation was voluntary and that no one was forced to follow them.

Schwartz responded more sharply. “It wasn’t an attack from the start,” he said. “The moment you didn’t accept the loss, participation in governance turned into an attack,” he added. After Lugat said he had acknowledged the loss and argued that the “attempt to fix the legacy chain” failed and that he was only keeping Bitcoin alive elsewhere, Schwartz quoted the phrase directly and replied, “Think about what you’re saying.”

Behind the exchange is a second attempt at a split chain pushed by the Bitcoin Knots camp. An earlier BIP-110-based chain effectively stalled after producing only 2 blocks in 8 hours. The new version changed the proof-of-work algorithm from SHA-256d to BLAKE2b to remove reliance on existing Bitcoin miners.

BIP-110 stems from conflict over how Bitcoin block space is used. It is a soft-fork proposal to temporarily restrict arbitrary data records, including Ordinals inscriptions, BRC-20 and Runes tokens. The aim was to control non-financial data taking up block space, but it failed to win network consensus and led supporters to pursue a split chain.

Support from the ecosystem for the renewed attempt has not yet been confirmed. None of the major exchanges, wallets or Lightning implementations has stepped forward to support the chain. As a result, even if the chain is launched technically, it will be difficult for it to establish itself as a real network without infrastructure for circulation, storage and payments.

The dispute shows that internal debate in Bitcoin over scalability and block-space use is moving beyond policy differences to the issue of chain splits. With a renewed push that even changes the algorithm right after the first attempt effectively stalled, attention is focusing on whether it can secure community backing and connect with infrastructure.

"the attempt to fix the legacy chain" Listen to yourself.