Starting at block 961,632, expected around August 8, 2025, Bitcoin Knots will begin rejecting blocks that do not signal support for BIP110. It is a consensus change that the majority of the ecosystem — starting with Bitcoin Core — has not adopted.
Only 1 to 2% of hashrate is currently signaling support for this proposal. Yet its proponents are keeping the pressure on. The question is no longer whether BIP110 will cause turbulence, but what kind.
Three scenarios are taking shape. Each carries radically different consequences for miners, nodes, and the integrity of the Bitcoin protocol.
Scenario 1: Miners Ignore BIP110 — and the Soft Fork Collapses
This is the most likely scenario given current data. If miners continue not to signal support, Bitcoin Core nodes and standard wallets will see no change whatsoever. Blocks will be mined as normal, transactions confirmed without delay. For the vast majority of users, nothing will change.
However, nodes running Bitcoin Knots or any other software enforcing BIP110 will find themselves in a critical deadlock. Their software will reject non-signaling blocks — which means virtually every block produced. These nodes will stop seeing new blocks, incoming and outgoing transactions will no longer confirm, and the node will become effectively unusable.
Faced with this impasse, BIP110 supporters would have three options: wait for a reversal, revert to non-BIP110 software, or escalate toward a hard fork with a proof-of-work algorithm change — which would amount to creating a new cryptocurrency entirely separate from Bitcoin.
Scenario 2: Miners Massively Adopt BIP110 — and the Network Splits
This is the scenario championed by several pro-BIP110 figures. If a majority of miners suddenly shift toward signaling, BIP110 nodes come back to life and begin building a chain that conforms to their rules. But Bitcoin Core continues to validate blocks under the old rules — including blocks without signaling.
The result would be a chain split: two competing versions of Bitcoin would coexist, each with its own blocks, its own transactions, and its own community. This kind of divergence echoes the historical precedents of Bitcoin Cash (2017) and Bitcoin SV (2018), along with the double-spend risks and market confusion that come with them.
In this scenario, exchanges, custodians, and financial services would need to quickly decide which chain they recognize as the legitimate Bitcoin. A decision with far-reaching consequences for liquidity, price, and institutional confidence in the asset.
Scenario 3: Partial Adoption That Prolongs Uncertainty
Between the two extremes, a third scenario emerges: partial and hesitant signaling adoption by miners. Not strong enough to impose BIP110, yet not weak enough to bury it for good. This outcome is potentially the most destabilizing over the medium term.
Signaling and non-signaling blocks would alternate unpredictably. BIP110 nodes would see blocks only sporadically, creating a degraded user experience and erratic confirmations. Protocol uncertainty would itself become a systemic risk, capable of weighing on market sentiment and fueling volatility in the price of BTC.
This scenario would also prolong the debate over the real-world utility of BIP110 — a proposal that aims to limit the size of OP_RETURN outputs and reduce non-financial data on the blockchain. Its opponents argue that it restricts Bitcoin without solving any genuine problem, while its supporters see it as a tool for preserving the purity of the protocol. A fundamental disagreement that, regardless of how BIP110 plays out, is far from being resolved.
