The Bitcoin network enters uncharted territory today as BIP110, a controversial soft fork proposal implemented in Bitcoin Knots, begins its mandatory signaling window starting at block 961,632. This protocol change, which aims to limit OP_RETURN sizes and reduce certain data types on Bitcoin's blockchain, has sparked intense debate throughout the community and now faces its moment of truth.
With current miner support hovering around a mere 1-2% of total hash power and Bitcoin Core—the dominant implementation running the vast majority of nodes—refusing to adopt the changes, BIP110 represents one of the most contentious upgrade attempts since the block size wars of 2017. Here's what you need to know about the three scenarios that could unfold in the coming days and weeks.
What Is BIP110 and Why Is It Controversial?
BIP110 emerged from the ongoing OP_RETURN debate that has divided Bitcoin developers and users. The proposal, now implemented in Bitcoin Knots, introduces temporary limits on OP_RETURN outputs and intends to restrict other data storage methods on the Bitcoin blockchain.
Proponents argue these measures are necessary to preserve Bitcoin's primary function as a monetary network, preventing what they view as blockchain bloat from non-financial data. Critics counter that BIP110 solves no meaningful problem while introducing potentially harmful restrictions on how users can interact with the network.
The fundamental issue isn't just technical—it's philosophical. Bitcoin Knots nodes running BIP110 will reject any blocks that don't signal support for the upgrade starting today. This creates an immediate compatibility gap with Bitcoin Core nodes, which have no such requirements and will continue operating normally regardless of signaling.
For long-term holders curious about how their Bitcoin investments have performed through previous contentious periods, our Bitcoin investment calculator can provide perspective on historical price movements during major network events.
Scenario One: Miner Support Remains Minimal
Based on current signaling data, this appears the most likely outcome. If miner support stays at approximately 1-2%, the practical effects will be starkly different depending on which software you run.
For the overwhelming majority of Bitcoin users running Bitcoin Core or similar implementations, absolutely nothing changes. Blocks continue being mined at normal intervals, transactions confirm as expected, and the network functions identically to any other day. Many users might not even realize anything unusual is occurring unless they actively follow Bitcoin governance discussions.
The situation becomes dramatically different for Bitcoin Knots operators. Their nodes will reject virtually every new block, causing their view of the blockchain to effectively freeze. Transactions won't confirm, and these nodes will become functionally useless for practical purposes.
What happens next in this scenario? BIP110 supporters face difficult choices. They can wait indefinitely hoping miner sentiment shifts, abandon the effort and return to non-BIP110 software, or pursue more drastic measures like hard forking to an alternative proof-of-work algorithm.
The hard fork option would allow GPU mining to resume, potentially enabling BIP110 supporters to maintain their own chain. However, this would effectively create a new cryptocurrency entirely separate from Bitcoin—a forkcoin rather than a successful upgrade.
Scenario Two: Sudden Mass Miner Adoption
Some BIP110 proponents predict a dramatically different outcome: when the mandatory signaling window opens, miners will rapidly pivot to support the upgrade to avoid their blocks being rejected by Knots nodes.
If a majority of miners begin signaling and simultaneously reject non-signaling blocks, the entire network could achieve apparent consensus. All blocks would include BIP110 signals, keeping both Knots and Core nodes synchronized. The actual rule changes would then activate approximately two weeks later.
This represents the success case for BIP110 advocates—a minority-driven upgrade that achieves network-wide adoption through strategic pressure.
However, even this optimistic scenario contains a critical caveat that shouldn't be overlooked. Signaling support and actually enforcing rules are fundamentally different actions. Miners might signal simply to ensure their blocks aren't rejected during the mandatory window while having no intention of enforcing BIP110 rules afterward.
The crucial factor is economic node enforcement. If most exchanges, merchants, and service providers running economic nodes don't implement BIP110, miners could later accept transactions that violate the proposed rules without consequence on the broader network. This would trigger a delayed chain split even after apparent universal signaling—BIP110 nodes would reject blocks that economic nodes accept.
Scenario Three: The Immediate Chain Split
The most dramatic scenario involves a sizable minority of miners—perhaps 20% or more—both signaling support and actively rejecting non-signaling blocks. This would immediately fracture the Bitcoin blockchain into two competing chains.
On the minority BIP110 chain, blocks would initially confirm far slower than normal—perhaps one or two per hour instead of the standard six. After the difficulty adjustment period of roughly two weeks, block times would normalize. The BIP110 rules would subsequently activate on this chain.
Meanwhile, the original chain would experience slightly slower blocks temporarily—maybe four or five per hour—before its own difficulty adjustment restores normal operation. BIP110 rules would never apply to this chain.
The result would be two parallel Bitcoin networks existing indefinitely, each with different rule sets. Users holding Bitcoin at the time of the split would possess equivalent balances on both chains, similar to the Bitcoin Cash fork of 2017.
The Wipe Out Risk and Permanent Split Mechanics
One crucial dynamic distinguishes this situation from typical hard forks: the potential for one chain to eliminate the other entirely.
Because BIP110 constitutes a soft fork rather than a hard fork, Bitcoin Core nodes would accept a longer BIP110 chain if one ever emerged. If miners migrating to the BIP110 chain eventually produced more cumulative proof-of-work, the original chain could be completely discarded—along with all block rewards miners earned on it.
BIP110 proponents cite this wipe out risk as precisely why miners should signal preemptively. No rational miner wants to accumulate rewards on a chain that could later vanish entirely.
However, users and miners committed to the original chain have a countermeasure available. By manually invalidating a block on the BIP110 minority chain while it remains the minority, they can ensure their nodes permanently reject that chain regardless of future length. This transforms a potential wipe out into a guaranteed permanent split.
What Comes Next for Bitcoin Governance
Regardless of which scenario materializes, BIP110 has already exposed fundamental questions about Bitcoin's upgrade mechanisms and governance structures. The attempt represents an unusual approach: deploying consensus changes through a minority implementation while the dominant software explicitly rejects them.
If BIP110 fails—as many observers expect—it may reinforce the difficulty of implementing controversial changes without broad prior consensus. If it succeeds in any form, it could establish new precedents for minority-driven upgrades that bypass traditional rough consensus processes.
For now, all eyes turn to the hash rate and economic nodes. The coming days will reveal whether BIP110 represents a failed experiment, a successful insurgent upgrade, or the beginning of another contentious chapter in Bitcoin's ongoing evolution. The network has survived such debates before, but each test shapes the precedents and expectations for future governance challenges.
Bitcoin holders and participants should closely monitor developments across multiple information sources. The outcome will likely become clear within days if miner support remains minimal, though scenarios involving chain splits could take weeks or months to fully resolve.