Following our previous report on the introduction of BIP-110 (popularly known as “The Broom”), the battle for Bitcoin’s block space has entered a critical new phase. As of March 17, 2026, network data shows that approximately 15% of the total Bitcoin hashrate is now actively signaling support for this controversial soft fork.
For a proposal that needs a 55% threshold to trigger, this 15% mark represents a significant “Proof of Work” from the minimalist camp.
Recap: Why the Broom is Sweeping the News
As we’ve discussed, BIP-110 is a technical proposal designed to restrict non-monetary data (like Inscriptions and Runes) from being permanently stored on the Bitcoin blockchain. The goal is to keep the ledger “lean” so that running a full node remains affordable—a point of extreme importance for African developers and users with limited hardware resources.
The Latest Developments: Signaling and Sabotage
The last 48 hours have seen a “tit-for-tat” struggle between signaling miners and data-heavy developers:
The 15% Threshold: Led by the Ocean mining pool and several independent North American and European firms, the signaling hashrate has tripled in less than a week.
On-Chain Protests: In a direct act of retaliation, “liberalist” developers have begun filling blocks with massive, encrypted data blobs specifically targeting blocks mined by signaling pools. This “bloat-war” is currently driving up transaction fees for everyone on the network.
The African Split: On social platforms like X and Nostr, the African community remains divided. While minimalists argue this will lower the cost of Lightning channel openings, critics argue that any form of data “censorship” sets a dangerous precedent for Bitcoin’s permissionless nature.
The Looming “Chain Split” Risk
The most alarming part of this update is the discussion around a Chain Split. Because BIP-110 uses a 55% activation threshold (rather than the traditional 95%), if it triggers, the network could split into two:
For African exchanges and wallets, managing two different versions of Bitcoin would create massive technical debt and user confusion.