{"id":31304,"date":"2026-08-07T14:25:38","date_gmt":"2026-08-07T13:25:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/investx.fr\/en\/2026\/08\/07\/bip110-bitcoin-three-scenarios-2025\/"},"modified":"2026-08-07T14:25:44","modified_gmt":"2026-08-07T13:25:44","slug":"bip110-bitcoin-three-scenarios-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/investx.fr\/en\/crypto-news\/bip110-bitcoin-three-scenarios-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"BIP110: The Three Scenarios That Could Fracture Bitcoin in 2025"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Starting at block 961,632<\/strong>, expected around August 8, 2025<\/strong>, Bitcoin Knots<\/strong> will begin rejecting blocks that do not signal support for BIP110<\/strong>. It is a consensus change that the majority of the ecosystem \u2014 starting with Bitcoin Core<\/strong> \u2014 has not adopted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Only 1 to 2% of hashrate<\/strong> is currently signaling support for this proposal. Yet its proponents are keeping the pressure on. The question is no longer whether BIP110<\/strong> will cause turbulence, but what kind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Three scenarios are taking shape. Each carries radically different consequences for miners, nodes, and the integrity of the Bitcoin<\/strong> protocol.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scenario 1: Miners Ignore BIP110 \u2014 and the Soft Fork Collapses<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

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<\/strong>. Blocks will be mined as normal, transactions confirmed without delay. For the vast majority of users, nothing will change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, nodes running Bitcoin Knots<\/strong> or any other software enforcing BIP110<\/strong> will find themselves in a critical deadlock. Their software will reject non-signaling blocks \u2014 which means virtually every block produced. These nodes will stop seeing new blocks<\/strong>, incoming and outgoing transactions will no longer confirm, and the node will become effectively unusable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Faced with this impasse, BIP110<\/strong> supporters would have three options: wait for a reversal, revert to non-BIP110 software, or escalate toward a hard fork<\/strong> with a proof-of-work algorithm change \u2014 which would amount to creating a new cryptocurrency entirely separate from Bitcoin<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"BIP110<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Scenario 2: Miners Massively Adopt BIP110 \u2014 and the Network Splits<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This is the scenario championed by several pro-BIP110 figures. If a majority of miners suddenly shift toward signaling, BIP110<\/strong> nodes come back to life and begin building a chain that conforms to their rules. But Bitcoin Core<\/strong> continues to validate blocks under the old rules \u2014 including blocks without signaling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The result would be a chain split<\/strong>: two competing versions of Bitcoin<\/strong> 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<\/strong> (2017) and Bitcoin SV<\/strong> (2018), along with the double-spend<\/a><\/strong> risks and market confusion that come with them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this scenario, exchanges, custodians, and financial services would need to quickly decide which chain they recognize as the legitimate Bitcoin<\/strong>. A decision with far-reaching consequences for liquidity, price, and institutional confidence in the asset.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"BIP110<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Scenario 3: Partial Adoption That Prolongs Uncertainty<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Between the two extremes, a third scenario emerges: partial and hesitant signaling adoption by miners. Not strong enough to impose BIP110<\/strong>, yet not weak enough to bury it for good. This outcome is potentially the most destabilizing over the medium term.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Signaling and non-signaling blocks would alternate unpredictably. BIP110<\/strong> nodes would see blocks only sporadically, creating a degraded user experience and erratic confirmations. Protocol uncertainty would itself become a systemic risk<\/strong>, capable of weighing on market sentiment and fueling volatility in the price of BTC<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This scenario would also prolong the debate over the real-world utility of BIP110<\/strong> \u2014 a proposal that aims to limit the size of OP_RETURN<\/code> outputs and reduce non-financial data on the blockchain. Its opponents argue that it restricts Bitcoin<\/strong> 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<\/strong> plays out, is far from being resolved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Related articles :<\/h3>\n\n\n\n