Will Bitcoin Split on August 9? Inside the BIP-110 Mandatory Signaling Window

 

Bitcoin's consensus rules have not changed since Taproot activated in November 2021, the longest quiet stretch in its history. Around August 9, that quiet faces its first real stress test. Per the formal BIP-110 specification, the proposal enforces a mandatory signaling period between blocks 961,632 and 963,647, during which blocks that do not signal bit 4 are rejected as invalid by nodes enforcing the rule.

 

One thing needs stating immediately: this is not an approved Bitcoin upgrade. CoinDesk reported in July that with both miner and node adoption stuck in the low single digits, BIP-110 appears likely to create only a small minority chain rather than a network-wide change. As of August 6, CryptoTimes cited the public monitoring dashboard showing roughly 2.42% signaling support in the current difficulty period, against the 55% required for early lock-in.

 

What makes this worth watching is not the size of the rule change but the mechanism. Mandatory signaling has a small subset of nodes actively rejecting blocks produced by the overwhelming majority of hashrate. It is the first operationally live chain-split scenario since 2017, and it arrives with bitcoin's price backdrop already under pressure.

 

 

 

BIP-110, formally the Reduced Data Temporary Softfork, would limit arbitrary data in transactions for a one-year period, targeting Ordinals inscriptions and large OP_RETURN payloads.

 

Mandatory signaling runs from block 961,632 to 963,647, widely projected between August 7 and 9. Lock-in occurs no later than block 963,648 and activation at block 965,664, projected for early September.

 

The rules expire automatically about 52,416 blocks after activation, roughly one year, making this a temporary deployment rather than a permanent one.

 

Early lock-in requires 55% of blocks in a difficulty period, meaning 1,109 of 2,016. Most soft forks target 95%.

 

Signaling has remained in low single digits: roughly 2.42% as of August 6, about 2.64% on July 27 and around 0.31% in late June.

 

Support comes mainly from Ocean pool, independent miners and small operators. F2Pool refused outright, AntPool has produced no signaling blocks, and Foundry put the decision to a customer vote, switching all blocks only if yes votes exceed 51% of weighted participating hashrate.

 

Enforcement runs primarily through Bitcoin Knots, whose share of reachable nodes is estimated between 8% and 23% depending on the metric, a figure that remains disputed.

 

UTXOs created before activation are permanently exempt, so only newly created outputs fall under the new rules.

 

 

 

Three numbers govern this process. The BIP-110 text specifies mandatory signaling from block 961,632 through 963,647, with lock-in no later than block 963,648. Bitcoin Magazine's explainer adds that the new transaction rules activate at block 965,664, currently projected for early September, and are enforced for 52,416 blocks, roughly one year.

 

The dates are estimates. Block heights are determined by actual production rates rather than the calendar, which is why published projections range from August 7 to August 9. Crypto Finance's custody analysis cautions that public attention has fixed on September 1 as the expected activation moment, but that estimate may shift because activation is determined by blocks produced, and a branch with little hashrate could take substantially longer than expected. The same analysis notes that for custodians the real preparation deadline is the start of mandatory signaling, not the activation date.

 

 

This point gets overlooked and it is essential to understanding the risk. Before the window opens, Bitcoin's rule is that both signaling and non-signaling blocks are valid. Once it opens, for nodes enforcing BIP-110 the rule becomes that only signaling blocks are valid.

 

Crypto Finance described the shift precisely: the validity rule changes from signaling and non-signaling blocks being valid to only signaling blocks being valid, and this is itself a soft fork because it narrows the set of blocks accepted by participating nodes. Nodes continuing under existing rules still accept both types.

 

The consequence follows directly. With signaling far below 55%, non-signaling blocks are highly likely to keep being produced. Enforcing nodes reject them and follow the minority chain that does signal, while non-upgraded nodes keep following the chain with the most accumulated work. The two diverge.

 

 

 

Hashrate data is the most direct evidence available. KuCoin, citing ChainCatcher's compilation, reported signaling at roughly 2.64% at block height 959,842 on July 27, with support coming primarily from Ocean, independent miners and small operators, while Foundry, AntPool, ViaBTC and F2Pool had not switched.

 

Simple Mining's breakdown adds detail on individual positions: AntPool, at just under a fifth of hashrate, remains silent with no signaling blocks, and F2Pool refused outright and has not changed. Foundry took an unusual route, asking customers to vote based on average hashrate, and will switch all its blocks only if yes votes exceed 51% of the weighted participating hashrate.

 

Any large pool announcement would change the picture within days, so every figure here should be read as a snapshot rather than a settled state.

 

 

The node picture is murkier. Simple Mining notes that Bitcoin Knots runs on somewhere between 8% and 23% of reachable nodes depending on the metric, with critics such as Jameson Lopp arguing that cheap Tor nodes make raw counts easy to inflate, while supporters point to a steady adoption curve since 2025.

 

The dispute matters practically. Node counts determine how much economic support an enforcing chain could attract, which is one of the core variables deciding which chain the market treats as Bitcoin after a split. With no agreed methodology, any specific claim about enforcement scale lacks a reliable basis.

 

 

 

Technically the conditions for a split are in place. Enforcing nodes will reject non-signaling blocks during the window, and at roughly 2% signaling the overwhelming majority of blocks will not signal. Those nodes would therefore follow a chain with very little hashrate behind it.

 

The knock-on effects deserve specificity. Difficulty adjusts only every 2,016 blocks, so at a few percent of hashrate a single retarget period would take dramatically longer than two weeks, with block intervals stretching accordingly in the interim. Whether such a chain survives depends on exchanges, wallets and users choosing to support it, not on its technical merits.

 

Bitcoin Core developer Jon Atack posted a warning on June 29 advising users to hold off on transactions during the second week of August, citing reorg risk tied to the window, while Luke Dashjr replied that there is no reorg risk for users who have already upgraded to BIP-110. Both are individual technical judgements, and readers should evaluate them against their own node configuration rather than accepting either at face value.

 

 

The 2017 block size dispute produced a permanent split and created Bitcoin Cash. That faction had far more than 1% of hashrate plus an organised developer coalition, and it still failed to displace the original chain. Analyses note that Bitcoin Cash launched at roughly 15% of BTC's price, fell to single-digit percentages within months, and by mid-2026 traded at less than 1% of BTC's value.

 

The precedent supplies a clear standard: what determines which chain the market calls Bitcoin is exchanges, custodians, developers and users, not miners. BIP-110 currently sits somewhere between under 1% and 2.42% signaling while facing opposition from the largest corporate holder, effectively every major mining pool, and Bitcoin Core developers.

 

 

The short answer is that most holders need to take no technical action. BIP-110's own documentation states that UTXOs created before activation are permanently exempt, so existing funds are unaffected regardless of wallet software, and only newly created outputs fall under the new rules.

 

Custody arrangements deserve more attention. AMINA Bank's research notes that support for a forked chain is decided provider by provider rather than announced network-wide, and that many regulated mandates restrict or prohibit holding a forked asset, so some providers may never claim a credited balance. Simple Mining adds that BlackRock's IBIT prospectus states the trust will permanently and irrevocably abandon any rights to forked or airdropped assets, with other issuers using similar language.

 

On the exchange side, no major venue had published specific plans for this event as of early August. The 2017 precedent was that some platforms paused deposits and withdrawals for a few days around the event while others waited or commented afterward. Users should treat each platform's official announcements as authoritative, since arrangements at venues such as MEXC are communicated through announcement channels rather than inferable from community discussion.

 

One practical scheduling note: if you need to make a large on-chain transfer, avoiding the hours immediately around the window opening is a low-cost precaution. Not because funds are at risk, but because confirmation times and fee predictability degrade during any period of potential reorgs and mempool divergence.

 

 

 

Reading this conflict as a fight over whether to limit inscriptions misses what it actually is.

 

The trigger was Bitcoin Core's v30 release in October 2025, which raised the default OP_RETURN relay policy limit from 83 bytes to roughly 100,000 bytes. Core characterised it as a relay policy change rather than a consensus change. Blockhead's analysis noted that Knots developers and BIP-110 advocates used this precisely as their justification, arguing that filtering cannot prevent data being embedded indistinguishably inside common transaction outputs and that consensus-level limits are therefore needed. The same analysis recorded the critics' view that this is a partial fix that will not solve the underlying problem while risking damage to the chain in the attempt.

 

The procedural dispute is equally sharp. Simple Mining's account notes that the proposal is authored under the pseudonym Dathon Ohm with Luke Dashjr credited for the original draft and advice, that authorship remains disputed, and that Greg Maxwell has alleged Ocean Mining wrote it while Dathon Ohm denies the claim. BIP editor Mark Erhardt assigned the number while publicly criticising the proposal, on the basis that a number signals process compliance rather than endorsement.

 

What is really being tested, then, is Bitcoin's governance model: whether a proposal with minimal hashrate support can force a rule change through node-side enforcement. Whatever happens in August, the answer will shape how every subsequent consensus proposal is pursued, including covenant proposals and any future post-quantum migration.

 

 

The first scenario, and the one current evidence points toward, is a very small minority chain. CoinDesk's assessment already frames this outcome. The main chain would continue operating normally, with market impact confined to elevated volatility during the window and short-term confirmation delays.

 

The second is that enforcement is abandoned or deferred before the window opens. If pool positions shift, or if users of the enforcing client choose not to enable it, the window could pass without material conflict. Bitcoin Knots publishes a parallel build without enforcement logic, which gives users an exit path.

 

The third is short-term disruption worse than expected. Because enforcement runs through nodes rather than miners, a lag in hashpower could produce brief reorgs, slower blocks or mempool divergence, all of which have been discussed as technical possibilities. In that case, volatility in on-chain fees and confirmation times would be more pronounced than price volatility.

 

The price backdrop belongs in the assessment. Blockhead's analysis recorded bitcoin around $64,300, a roughly 49% discount to its October 2025 all-time high of $126,000, and below a declining 200-day moving average. In that structure, additional sources of uncertainty are more readily amplified.

 

One further protocol event falls nearby. AMINA Bank's research notes that an eCash hard fork is targeted at block 964,000 around August 21, roughly two weeks apart from this one. It is unrelated to Bitcoin mainnet but will add noise to the news flow.

 

 

What actually matters here is not the technical detail of a data limit. It is that the episode tests a proposition never genuinely validated before: whether a faction with under 3% of hashrate can change Bitcoin's rules through node-side enforcement. The 2017 fight asked whether a faction with substantial hashrate and corporate backing could fork successfully, and the answer was no. BIP-110 proposes a more extreme version of that question. For risk pricing, that means the technical possibility of a split exists while its economic sustainability approaches zero, and the two should not be conflated.

 

Three misreadings look likely. The first is equating a chain split with Bitcoin splitting. Under the heaviest-chain rule, non-upgraded nodes keep following the chain with the most accumulated work, and the location of most users' and exchanges' assets does not change. What actually separates is a branch with minimal hashrate and glacial difficulty adjustment. The second is treating the window opening as the end of the event. The genuine custody deadline is indeed the start of mandatory signaling, but the activation estimate drifts with block production, so treating September 1 as a fixed date misunderstands the mechanism. The third is underestimating the fee market. If mempool divergence and confirmation delays materialise, the swing in on-chain costs could far exceed the swing in price, and price is what most coverage watches.

 

Three sets of verifiable on-chain data deserve tracking, rather than social media positioning. First, how signaling moves across the final difficulty periods before the window, especially whether any large pool switches, since a single pool can reshape the picture within days. Second, actual block intervals on any enforcing chain, which directly determine whether it can keep operating and constitute the hardest test of economic sustainability. Third, mempool depth and median fees during the window, which register real network friction earlier than price does. Node share statistics rank below these three, given the contested methodology and the ease of distortion by low-cost nodes.

 

The cross-asset lesson is that governance costs in decentralised systems surface periodically. Bitcoin's five years without a consensus change is itself part of the institutional allocation case, and this window puts the friction in that mechanism back on the table. Notably, the custody layer reacted before price did: BlackRock's product documentation states it will permanently abandon rights to forked assets, with several issuers using similar language. That tells you regulated capital handles protocol uncertainty by surrendering optional claims in advance rather than absorbing operational complexity, and it is a more informative signal about how institutions price these events than any price chart. From a risk management standpoint, reducing the frequency and size of on-chain operations during the window is a better cost-benefit trade than betting on the fork outcome.

 

This analysis rests on the published proposal text, monitoring data and credible reporting available now. Pool positions, signaling rates and actual block production could all change quickly, and no single scenario should be treated as a fixed expectation.

 

 

 

A split is possible but likely limited in scale. The technical conditions exist: nodes enforcing BIP-110 will reject non-signaling blocks during the window, and signaling sits at roughly 2.42% against a 55% threshold. However, CoinDesk's assessment is that with miner and node adoption in low single digits, the proposal appears likely to create only a small minority chain rather than a network-wide change. Non-upgraded nodes continue following the chain with the most accumulated work.

 

 

Formally the Reduced Data Temporary Softfork, it would limit the arbitrary data a transaction can carry for one year, targeting Ordinals inscriptions and large OP_RETURN payloads. The specific rules cap most new outputs at 34 bytes, OP_RETURN at 83 bytes and data pushes at 256 bytes. The restrictions expire automatically about 52,416 blocks after activation, making this a temporary deployment rather than a permanent rule change.

 

 

Most holders need take no technical action. The official documentation states that UTXOs created before activation are permanently exempt, so existing funds are unaffected regardless of wallet software, and only newly created outputs fall under the new rules. Assets held on exchanges are handled by the platform. The one practical suggestion is to avoid large on-chain transfers around the window opening, not for security reasons but because confirmation times and fee predictability may degrade.

 

 

Positions vary but the result is uniform. F2Pool refused outright, AntPool holds just under a fifth of hashrate and has produced no signaling blocks, and ViaBTC has not switched. Foundry took an unusual route, asking customers to vote based on average hashrate and committing to switch all its blocks only if yes votes exceed 51% of weighted participating hashrate. Support comes mainly from Ocean, independent miners and small operators. Any large pool announcement could change this within days.

 

 

Normal soft forks activate once voluntary miner signaling clears a threshold, typically targeting 95%. BIP-110 sets 55% and, failing that, enters a mandatory signaling period during which enforcing nodes accept only signaling blocks. That transition is itself a soft fork, since it narrows the set of blocks participating nodes accept, while non-participating nodes continue accepting both types. The divergence follows from exactly that asymmetry.

 

 

As of early August, no major exchange had published specific plans for this event. The 2017 precedent was that some platforms paused deposits and withdrawals for a few days around the event while others waited or commented afterward. Users should rely on each platform's official announcements rather than community discussion. On custody, many regulated mandates restrict or prohibit holding forked assets, and some providers may never claim a forked balance at all.

 

 

The precedent does not support optimism. Bitcoin Cash launched in 2017 at roughly 15% of BTC's price, fell to single-digit percentages within months, and by mid-2026 traded at less than 1% of BTC's value, despite commanding far more hashrate and developer backing than BIP-110 has today. What determines a chain's value is support from exchanges, custodians and users rather than hashrate or technical arguments.

 

 

The near-term effect is more likely to show up in volatility and on-chain costs than in direction. Analyses recorded bitcoin around $64,300, a roughly 49% discount to its October 2025 high of $126,000 and below a declining 200-day moving average, a structure in which additional uncertainty is readily amplified. The more informative series to follow are mempool depth and median fees during the window.

 

 

This article is provided for informational and technical research purposes only. It does not constitute investment advice, financial advice, legal advice, tax advice or any recommendation to transact, nor does it constitute technical guidance on node configuration, wallet operations or asset handling. The proposal terms, block heights and signaling figures referenced here come from published technical documentation, monitoring dashboards and credible reporting on a developing situation; block-based timings are estimates that shift with actual block production, some figures carry disputed methodologies, and the text notes that status where applicable. Prices of crypto assets, equities and other related financial instruments can move sharply over short periods, particularly during episodes of protocol-level uncertainty, and investors may lose their entire principal. Historical performance, technical indicators and on-chain data cannot guarantee future outcomes and should not be read as a promise or forecast regarding any asset. Readers should conduct their own independent research, verify official information directly, and evaluate any decision against their own financial circumstances, investment objectives, experience and risk tolerance, consulting a qualified professional adviser where appropriate. The MEXC Crypto Pulse team accepts no liability for any direct or indirect loss arising from use of or reliance on the information in this article.

 

 

James Mitchell specializes in technical analysis, market trends, and trading strategies for both Bitcoin and altcoins. Based in London, he has over 10 years of experience in financial markets. Before joining MEXC Learn, James worked as a senior analyst at a leading European investment firm, where he developed expertise in risk management and quantitative trading. His transition to cryptocurrency markets began in 2017, and he has since become recognized for his data-driven approach. He holds a Master's degree in Financial Economics from the London School of Economics. His analytical approach combines traditional technical analysis with on-chain metrics to provide readers with actionable insights.

 

Areas of Expertise:

 

 

Want the fastest access to MEXC's latest updates? Join our official Telegram group now!

MEXC Platform: Download App | Zero Fee Trading | Buy USDT Now

Join MEXC Community: X (Twitter) | Telegram | Discord

Get Insights: MEXC Learn | Terms of Service | MEXC Blog | MEXC News

Account Verification: Understand KYC | How to Complete KYC

External Content Platforms: Substack | Medium | Paragraph | LinkedIn | X(News)