What Is Netanyahu’s Response to Trump?

Bitcoin’s BIP-110 split widened further on Aug. 9, with the enforcing branch still unable to produce a third block hours after mandatory signaling began. 

The latest BIP-110 Monitor snapshot showed the minority chain stuck at block 961,633 while Bitcoin’s dominant, non-enforcing chain had reached 961,744. That increased the gap to 111 blocks from 88 earlier Sunday.

The stall offers the clearest test yet of how much mining support BIP-110 has attracted. Only 51 of the 2,016 blocks in the previous difficulty period signaled for the proposal, equal to 2.53%. Since the mandatory window started at block 961,632, the monitor had recorded zero signaling blocks among the first 113 blocks on the dominant chain.

Bitcoin BIP-110 branch remains frozen after two blocks

BIP-110 enforcing nodes began rejecting non-signaling blocks at height 961,632 on Aug. 8. Roughnecks then produced an alternative block at that height and followed it with block 961,633. OCEAN’s BIP-110 block record confirms that Roughnecks mined the first block using its DATUM system at a difficulty of 127.48 trillion.

Progress stopped shortly afterward. OCEAN’s BIP-110 mining endpoint showed its latest block remained 961,633 roughly 17 hours later, with displayed hash power around 257 PH/s at the latest retrieval. Meanwhile, the non-enforcing Bitcoin chain continued adding blocks at its normal pace.

As crypto.news reported, the gap had reached 98 blocks when Bitcoin stood at 961,731 earlier Sunday. The newer monitor data shows another 13 Bitcoin blocks were added without a corresponding BIP-110 block, bringing the difference to 111.

The branch has not technically ceased to exist. Miners can still direct additional computing power toward it and attempt to extend its chain. However, the latest data provides no evidence that enough hash power has arrived to restore anything close to Bitcoin’s regular block production rate.

Full Bitcoin difficulty makes the minority fork difficult to advance

The problem comes from Bitcoin’s difficulty adjustment system. BIP-110 split away at the start of difficulty period 477, but the enforcing branch inherited the same mining target as the dominant chain. Losing most of its mining power therefore did not immediately make its blocks easier to find. OCEAN records the difficulty at 127.48 trillion.

Bitcoin normally recalculates difficulty after a 2,016-block period. Since the BIP-110 branch has produced only blocks 961,632 and 961,633 in the current window, it still needs to work through the remainder of that period before a normal retarget can provide relief. With block production already measured in many hours rather than roughly ten-minute intervals, the time required could become extremely long unless additional miners join.

Michael Saylor seized on that weakness Sunday. In an X post, the Strategy executive chairman said “about 99.85% of Bitcoin’s hashpower stayed with Bitcoin” and called the result decisive. That 99.85% figure is Saylor’s estimate rather than a measurement published by the Bitcoin protocol or BIP-110 specification.

Saylor separately estimated that, at “~0.15% of Bitcoin’s hashpower,” the fork could take “~25 years” to reach its first difficulty adjustment. That projection should also be treated as an estimate based on the hash power assumption he used at the time. Mining power can enter or leave either branch, so the expected timeline can change sharply.

Mandatory signaling continues despite the miner rejection

The unusual feature of BIP-110 is that missing its voluntary signaling target did not end the deployment. The official BIP-110 specification sets a 55% threshold during voluntary signaling but also includes a mandatory window between blocks 961,632 and 963,647. Nodes enforcing the proposal reject blocks during that period unless their version field signals bit 4.

The previous difficulty period ended with just 51 supporting blocks out of 2,016, or 2.53%. Period 477 has been even more one-sided on the dominant chain so far. At block 961,744, the monitor counted zero signaling blocks out of 113 produced since the new period began.

This is why BIP-110 can create a minority branch despite low miner support. Nodes running its rules reject blocks that ordinary Bitcoin nodes accept, causing the two groups to disagree about which blocks are valid. The dominant chain retains far greater observed mining activity, while BIP-110 enforcing nodes remain on the two-block branch.

Saylor and Blockstream co-founder Adam Back had warned before the split that enforcing BIP-110 without broad support could divide the network. Supporters, including Bitcoin Knots maintainer Luke Dashjr, have instead argued that temporary consensus restrictions are necessary to curb non-monetary data storage. These remain opposing positions in the broader dispute over Bitcoin block space.

Holders still face replay risk while both chains exist

The stalled branch also leaves a practical issue for anyone considering moving pre-fork coins. BIP-110 does not inherently give those balances replay protection, meaning a transaction signed on one branch can potentially remain valid on the other under some circumstances.

Bitcoin developer Kevin Loaec warned users that attempting to sell coins on the minority fork without first separating balances could expose corresponding BTC on the dominant chain. The danger arises because both histories began with the same pre-split transaction outputs.

The risk does not mean someone automatically gains control of an entire Bitcoin wallet. Rather, a transaction valid on both chains could be copied and rebroadcast, potentially moving the same transaction inputs on each network. Users who leave pre-split coins untouched do not create a signed transaction that can be replayed.

The economic relevance of that issue will depend partly on whether exchanges, wallets and users begin assigning value to the minority chain. So far, its two-block history and slow production leave little infrastructure for normal transfers or trading.

What happens next for BIP-110

The next formal checkpoints remain block based. Under BIP-110, mandatory signaling continues through block 963,647. The proposal is designed to enter LOCKED_IN no later than block 963,648, then move to ACTIVE one difficulty period later. Its actual reduced-data consensus rules would begin at block 965,664 and run for 52,416 blocks, or roughly one year at Bitcoin’s intended block rate.

Those heights are straightforward for the dominant Bitcoin chain to reach if current block production continues. They are much harder for the enforcing branch while it remains at 961,633. The two chains can therefore reach nominally identical block heights on very different calendars.

BIP-110 supporters have also prepared a more radical fallback. An Aug. 1 GitHub branch maintained by Chris Guida contains 12 commits involving a potential proof-of-work change, including code for selecting another algorithm and configuring a hard fork time. No activation time is set in the code.

Guida has described the work as contingency code rather than an immediately scheduled fork. That means the present BIP-110 split remains governed by Bitcoin’s existing proof-of-work difficulty unless supporters adopt another change later.

For now, the latest measurable trend remains one-sided. At 15:27 UTC Sunday, Bitcoin had extended the gap to 111 blocks, BIP-110 had not produced a third block, and no block in the dominant chain’s new difficulty period had signaled support. Whether that changes depends primarily on miners directing substantial new hash power toward the enforcing branch.

XRP Ledger developers have retired five long active protocol amendments in xrpld version 3.3.0, but the move does not remove their features or require XRP holders to take action.

RippleX software engineer Mayukha Vadari explained on X that retirement removes old pre-amendment code left behind after a protocol change has operated for years. The amended behavior itself stays in place. Official XRPL documentation confirms that retired amendments become unconditional parts of the core protocol.

The distinction became important after the Aug. 6 release of xrpld 3.3.0, which retired Clawback, fixDisallowIncomingV1, fixInnerObjTemplate, fixNFTokenReserve and fixUniversalNumber. In other words, “retiring Clawback” does not mean XRP Ledger issuers lose clawback functionality. The network is instead dropping the older code path that described how transactions behaved before the amendment became active.

XRP Ledger retirement makes old rules permanent

The XRP Ledger amendment system allows protocol changes to be introduced without immediately forcing every new rule onto Mainnet. Validators vote on amendments, and a proposal must maintain support from more than 80% of trusted validators for two continuous weeks before it becomes active. Once enabled, the new behavior applies permanently unless another amendment later changes it.

During the period after activation, xrpld keeps both the current logic and some pre-amendment code. That legacy code can help developers reproduce old ledger behavior when debugging or verifying historical transactions. However, keeping years of obsolete branches also adds complexity to the codebase.

The official amendment documentation says a Mainnet amendment can be retired once it has been enabled for two years. Retirement removes its old code path, stops treating the change as a conditional amendment and incorporates the newer behavior into the protocol unconditionally.

Vadari described the process as “purely a codebase cleanup” and said it “won’t affect any users.” She added that developers generally wait two years because the previous implementation can still be useful when debugging older transactions. XRPL’s own testing documentation similarly warns that historically accurate transaction replay may require running the xrpld version that originally processed the transaction after old amendments have been retired.

Clawback is not being removed from XRPL

Clawback is the most recognizable of the five retired amendments and the easiest to misinterpret. The feature became active on Mainnet on Feb. 8, 2024 and allows qualifying issuers to recover issued tokens from holders when the issuing account has enabled the required clawback setting. It does not allow an issuer to claw back native XRP.

Retiring the amendment therefore means the network no longer needs code for a version of XRPL where Clawback did not exist. Current Clawback behavior remains part of the protocol. The XRPL known amendments page now explicitly marks its pre-amendment functionality as retired.

The other four retirements follow the same principle. fixDisallowIncomingV1 corrected a trust line authorization issue. fixInnerObjTemplate addressed errors involving inner AMM objects. fixNFTokenReserve added reserve checks when NFT offers are accepted, while fixUniversalNumber unified parts of XRPL’s decimal floating point calculations. Their post-amendment rules remain in effect even though the older paths are being removed.

This is not a new governance mechanism. XRPL has retired earlier amendments after their rules became sufficiently established. Version 3.2.0, for example, retired older changes covering Checks, Deposit Authorization, account deletion and other protocol functions.

Version 3.3.0 also starts a new amendment cycle

While five old amendments are leaving conditional status, version 3.3.0 adds six new proposals to xrpld. They are BatchV1_1, ConfidentialTransfer, DynamicMPT, PermissionDelegationV1_1, Sponsor and fixCleanup3_3_0. Their inclusion in the software does not mean those capabilities are already active on Mainnet.

As crypto.news reported, ConfidentialTransfer would support privacy preserving Multi-Purpose Token transfers, while BatchV1_1 would allow an account to submit as many as eight inner transactions together. Sponsor would allow third parties to cover fees and reserve requirements, while DynamicMPT would provide more flexibility over selected token properties.

Each proposal must still clear XRPL’s validator process independently. More than 80% support must persist for two weeks before an amendment activates, and support can fall below the threshold and reset the timer.

The difference between these new amendments and the five retired ones is therefore substantial. The new proposals are awaiting network approval. The retired amendments already passed that stage years ago, became established network behavior and have now reached the point where maintaining their older code is no longer considered necessary.

What happens next for XRPL operators

For ordinary XRP holders, no migration, wallet update or transaction is required specifically because the five amendments were retired. Clawback and the other affected protocol behaviors continue operating under the established rules.

Server operators have a different consideration. The XRPL 3.3.0 release notice tells operators to upgrade to version 3.3.0 as soon as possible to maintain service continuity. Staying current is also important because servers need software containing the code for amendments that may later become active. A server lacking an activated amendment can become amendment blocked and stop participating normally in the network.

In related coverage, that mechanism was demonstrated in July when activation of fixCleanup3_2_0 left nodes running older incompatible versions amendment blocked.

Attention now shifts from the retired amendments to validator decisions around the six additions in version 3.3.0. As previously reported, ConfidentialTransfer is among the proposals aimed at expanding XRPL’s tools for institutional tokenized assets, but its use still depends on validator approval.

For the five retired amendments, however, there is no comparable vote ahead. Retirement marks the end of their transition period rather than the end of their functionality: the amended rules are now simply part of XRP Ledger’s permanent core behavior.

President Donald Trump has privately told senior aides he could end the U.S.-Iran war without securing a nuclear agreement if Tehran fully reopens the Strait of Hormuz, the Wall Street Journal reported on Aug. 9, citing U.S. officials.

The report comes as Iran raises the price for reopening the waterway, tying compensation, sanctions relief and wider security demands to any durable arrangement.

The White House has not publicly confirmed that Trump has changed his nuclear objective. Its latest published Iran remarks, from July 28, instead repeated that Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon and said military options remain available if diplomacy fails. The reported willingness to “walk away without a nuclear deal” therefore remains a private policy consideration, not an announced shift in U.S. strategy.

Iran’s latest demands complicate the Hormuz exit path

The Journal reported that Iran is seeking billions of dollars in U.S. payments, the withdrawal of American forces from the region and an end to the U.S. naval blockade. Reuters separately reported that Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi is demanding compensation for U.S. attacks, while Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr, secretary of Iran’s top security body, called for sanctions relief, freed Iranian assets and an end to U.S. military pressure on Iran and its regional allies.

Tehran has also separated its talks with Oman from a broader settlement with Washington. Araqchi said an Iran-Oman agreement defining new shipping lanes is in “final stages,” but said the waterway would not reopen simply because that technical arrangement is completed. He added that Iran and the U.S. are not in direct talks, although messages continue through intermediaries.

A U.S. official told Reuters that Washington would lift its blockade of Iranian ports once commercial shipping resumes without impediments. That creates a sequencing problem: Washington wants shipping restored before lifting the blockade, while Iran says broader U.S. concessions must come first.

The proposed arrangement also remains politically sensitive because Reuters reported that one version could give Tehran a role in controlling ships entering the Gulf. U.S. officials have repeatedly opposed Iranian control of Hormuz and mandatory tolls, leaving another unresolved issue even if technical shipping lanes are agreed.

Trump’s public nuclear line has not formally changed

The strongest reason to treat the latest report cautiously is the gap between Trump’s private comments and public position. In a July 28 White House statement, Trump maintained that Iran could not obtain a nuclear weapon and warned that U.S. forces could strike additional sites if diplomacy failed. The administration has not issued a public statement reversing that position.

The Journal, however, reported that Trump has privately told aides Tehran may be unable to rebuild its nuclear program during his presidency after earlier U.S. strikes damaged major facilities. According to the report, he believes U.S. intelligence could detect renewed work and that the threat of more military action could deter rebuilding. Those judgments are not a negotiated nuclear settlement.

A White House official told the Journal that the administration considers its military objectives completed and is now focused on restoring energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz, while keeping military options available if Iran attacks shipping. That would make reopening Hormuz the near-term test for de-escalation even if the nuclear dispute remains unresolved.

Domestic politics add pressure. The Journal reported that Trump is prepared to wait through the latest negotiating difficulties as long as gasoline prices remain manageable. It put the U.S. national average at $4.02 a gallon on Saturday, compared with $3.16 a year earlier, with the midterm elections less than three months away.

Hormuz keeps oil and crypto markets sensitive

Markets remain focused on whether shipping can normalize. Reuters reported that most Gulf stock markets ended Sunday subdued while investors waited for clarity on the Oman-Iran arrangement. Brent crude settled Friday at $83.55 a barrel, up $1.06, or 1.3%.

Bitcoin was trading near $65,184 on Sunday. There is no evidence that the Journal report alone caused the move, especially with U.S. markets closed. Still, the conflict has repeatedly fed into crypto risk sentiment through oil prices, inflation expectations and broader geopolitical risk.

As crypto.news reported on July 31, Bitcoin fell below $64,000 as renewed Iran fighting lifted oil and revived fears over energy disruption. Bitcoin later moved back above $64,000 as expectations for a Hormuz agreement improved. Those episodes help explain why crypto traders continue watching the negotiations even when the trigger is outside digital asset markets.

The Strait handled about one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments before the current disruption, according to Reuters. A durable reopening could therefore affect energy prices, transport costs and inflation expectations, although the market response would depend on the terms and whether shipping normalizes in practice.

What happens next in the Iran talks

The next verifiable step is an Iran-Oman shipping agreement. Araqchi says the deal is close, but no final text has been published and Tehran says it will not be enough by itself to reopen the strait. Washington says its blockade can be lifted once commercial shipping resumes freely.

The broader demands remain harder to resolve. Iran is seeking compensation, sanctions relief, access to frozen assets and security concessions. As previously reported, access to frozen Iranian assets has surfaced in earlier negotiations as one potential bargaining point, although no current deal on that issue has been announced.

Meanwhile, the U.S. has not publicly agreed to Tehran’s latest terms, while the White House has not confirmed the Journal’s report that Trump would accept ending the war without a nuclear accord. Iran also continues to say there are no direct U.S.-Iran talks at present.

For now, reopening Hormuz appears to be the most tangible off-ramp available to Washington. Whether it becomes the basis for ending the conflict will depend on published terms, actual shipping access and whether both sides can sequence concessions without triggering another round of military escalation.

Fresh HYPE supply is moving through trading venues after HyperLabs unlocked 433,025 tokens worth more than $23 million, adding another test for Hyperliquid’s market as scheduled team distributions continue. 

On Aug. 8, onchain tracker Lookonchain reported that the development team had redeemed the tokens from staking and was gradually moving them toward Flowdesk and OKX.