Those 8,346 entries were transactions in two BIP110 minority-fork blocks, not transactions censored by Bitcoin. The count also includes two fork-specific coinbase transactions.
I sampled 16 ordinary transactions from those blocks. Fifteen of the exact transactions subsequently confirmed on Bitcoin. For example:
* 2c2d…36ab8: BIP110 block 961,632, then Bitcoin block 961,633
* 0fff…3af13: BIP110 block 961,632, then Bitcoin block 961,634
* 0613…b6d1c: BIP110 block 961,633, then Bitcoin block 961,635
* efec…9043: BIP110 block 961,633, then Bitcoin block 961,638
The sixteenth did not confirm because a conflicting transaction spending the same input confirmed instead, which is a double-spend conflict, not censorship.
Bitcoin nodes did not reject the Roughnecks transactions. They followed the branch with vastly more accumulated proof of work, making the two Roughnecks blocks stale from Bitcoin’s perspective. Valid, non-conflicting transactions were then mined into subsequent Bitcoin blocks.
In fact, the explicit rejection happened in the opposite direction: RDTS nodes deliberately rejected Bitcoin’s non-signalling block 961,632 and followed the low-work BIP110 branch instead. Counting every transaction inside the losing fork’s two blocks as “censored” is simply incorrect.
paxchristi
npub13p…cmj3f
2026-08-13 12:45:20 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…run0
Author Public Key
npub13paz6seqlckvtvwfxwhjz60ycupkh5zj6ykz7d67zqkxyjnl6j8sqcmj3fPublished at
2026-08-13 12:45:20 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "14729654806e49bb4e8de72399993df5e47b54d2d0d96fd5a17a689fa146fa45",
"pubkey": "887a2d4320fe2cc5b1c933af2169e4c7036bd052d12c2f375e102c624a7fd48f",
"created_at": 1786625120,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"0000026940b6abf19846103dd58ffa8c7dd59f3da901e59e4e656995b288c924",
"wss://relay.primal.net/",
"root",
"dd1f9d502c7951df47e8f8ed245e8bfa24f7e82c28f19399a8f0e74b06113a21"
],
[
"e",
"000000c2522cd3086c8a0b32092572b12650525acefa2f8a22f55feac9732d95",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b21121518221b0f031bd41f010aeef1e4015c1aad5d8b2539d2ddcd60c7f8666",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"p",
"dd1f9d502c7951df47e8f8ed245e8bfa24f7e82c28f19399a8f0e74b06113a21",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"p",
"846307688a09ec112967eb0544e78a9e88c48f50712c39ed491ff2b6fa019ae8",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"p",
"e8ed3798c6ffebffa08501ac39e271662bfd160f688f94c45d692d8767dd345a",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"client",
"Primal iOS"
]
],
"content": "Those 8,346 entries were transactions in two BIP110 minority-fork blocks, not transactions censored by Bitcoin. The count also includes two fork-specific coinbase transactions.\n\nI sampled 16 ordinary transactions from those blocks. Fifteen of the exact transactions subsequently confirmed on Bitcoin. For example:\n\n* 2c2d…36ab8: BIP110 block 961,632, then Bitcoin block 961,633\n* 0fff…3af13: BIP110 block 961,632, then Bitcoin block 961,634\n* 0613…b6d1c: BIP110 block 961,633, then Bitcoin block 961,635\n* efec…9043: BIP110 block 961,633, then Bitcoin block 961,638\n\nThe sixteenth did not confirm because a conflicting transaction spending the same input confirmed instead, which is a double-spend conflict, not censorship.\n\nBitcoin nodes did not reject the Roughnecks transactions. They followed the branch with vastly more accumulated proof of work, making the two Roughnecks blocks stale from Bitcoin’s perspective. Valid, non-conflicting transactions were then mined into subsequent Bitcoin blocks.\n\nIn fact, the explicit rejection happened in the opposite direction: RDTS nodes deliberately rejected Bitcoin’s non-signalling block 961,632 and followed the low-work BIP110 branch instead. Counting every transaction inside the losing fork’s two blocks as “censored” is simply incorrect.",
"sig": "c3b73deef2c89d904b2dd3ea45b5e3b1bc3783b621b437444e6670d30c1134bd805f6af1a46ca5c8ab41366f7e1928962e782718951db05392bb18c54433545c"
}