{"id":208885,"date":"2026-08-04T20:41:18","date_gmt":"2026-08-04T20:41:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mycryptomania.com\/?p=208885"},"modified":"2026-08-04T20:41:18","modified_gmt":"2026-08-04T20:41:18","slug":"corporations-approach-to-the-bip-110-soft-fork","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mycryptomania.com\/?p=208885","title":{"rendered":"Corporation\u2019s Approach to the BIP-110 Soft Fork"},"content":{"rendered":"

Bitcoin Magazine<\/a><\/p>\n

Corporation\u2019s Approach to the BIP-110 Soft Fork<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

BIP-110 is approaching its first consequential activation boundary<\/a>. The proposal enters mandatory signaling at block 961,632, currently projected around August 9, 2026. It locks in no later than block 963,648, roughly in late August, and activates its new transaction rules at block 965,664, currently projected for early September. BIP-110 uses a 55% signaling threshold and would enforce its restrictions for 52,416 blocks, approximately one year.<\/p>\n

Bitcoin resolves consensus changes through coordination among miners, users, and nodes (note that anyone can be any combination of these three things). Miners choose which valid chain to extend. Users decide which chain\u2019s coins, deposits, and payments they recognize. Nodes independently choose which rules they enforce. Durable consensus emerges whenever these groups converge on the same chain.<\/p>\n

BIP-110 restricts large data pushes, oversized output scripts, undefined witness versions, Taproot annexes, deep Taproot control blocks, OP_SUCCESS opcodes, and certain Tapscript conditionals. It grandfathers UTXOs created before activation, while standard monetary uses remain compatible with its rules.<\/p>\n

Most corporations don\u2019t have to do anything\u00a0<\/h2>\n

For most corporations, BIP-110 requires no action. Today, the typical corporate Bitcoin utility is as a store of value, as a long-duration treasury reserve asset. This use case is basically unaffected by the transaction features targeted by BIP-110.<\/p>\n

Corporations using Bitcoin for payments also face limited direct impact. Standard on-chain payments remain compatible (see below for specifics), while ordinary Lightning payments occur off-chain. A chain split can still affect Lightning channel monitoring, force-close behavior, and the chain source that a Lightning node treats as authoritative. However, even corporations using Bitcoin for payments normally use a third party provider like Square, so all of this abstracted away to be a non-issue.\u00a0<\/p>\n

A corporation that runs its own full node has a direct choice. Every user retains the right to run the Bitcoin implementation that matches its needs. A corporation that supports BIP-110 should therefore switch over to running BIP-110. All other node-running corporations can simply do nothing.\u00a0<\/p>\n

A BIP-110 node enforces tighter rules. During mandatory signaling, it rejects blocks that fail to signal bit 4. After activation, it also rejects blocks containing transactions that violate BIP-110. A non-BIP-110 node accepts BIP-110-compliant blocks as well as blocks that remain valid under the existing rules. Among all chains valid under its own rules, a node follows the branch with the greatest accumulated proof of work.<\/p>\n

So the key factor to be aware of is a chain split. When miners build a chain that is not compliant to the BIP, BIP-110 nodes can separate from the broader network. Non-BIP-110 nodes may continue following the higher-work branch, while BIP-110 nodes could remain on a compliant branch with less accumulated work.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Corporations dealing with chain splits\u00a0<\/h2>\n

Mining companies face the highest immediate economic exposure. Electricity and machine time are sunk costs. A miner should select the branch it expects other miners, nodes, and users to recognize and mine on it. A miner may also stop mining and wait for the chain split to resolve. If BIP-110 and non-BIP-110 chains develop independently, miners must track chainwork, signaling, validity under both rule sets, and their own mining pool\u2019s stance, and the market value assigned to each branch.<\/p>\n

Corporations operating exchanges and institutional custody should prepare for settlement uncertainty. During an extended split, the ordinary six-confirmation standard loses much of its value because each branch can show six confirmations independently. Operators should monitor both branches, raise confirmation requirements, pause large deposits or withdrawals when risk rises, and delay final settlement until one branch has decisively accumulated more work or the transaction has sufficient depth on all viable branches. Different validation rules can produce chain splits, false confirmations, and double-spend risk.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s consider a chain split occurring at block height S<\/strong>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Chain splits and determining overall global finality <\/p>\n

Suppose a deposit appears on Chain A at S+4<\/strong> and on Chain B at S+6<\/strong>. Once both chains reach S+12<\/strong>, the deposit has substantial depth on each branch (assuming we are still using six-confirmations). Now, this number of six confirmations should change depending on the work on each branch. And it might be the case that the number of confirmations one would like to see would be different for each branch. The main point is that the operator must wait until both branches reach the requisite confirmations. The operator can at that point be confident that the transaction remains, not matter which branch becomes canonical. <\/p>\n

If the transaction appears on only one branch, the operator should wait for that branch to win or apply chain-specific accounting. That would be the only way to ensure no double spending happens. In practice, monetary transactions should always eventually appear on both branches, since the BIP-110 chain does not prohibit monetary transactions. <\/p>\n

Conclusion\u00a0<\/h2>\n

The main thing to be aware of is a chain split. If there is no split, then there is nothing that needs to be done differently. Even with a chain split, BIP-110 will not create insurmountable disruptions.\u00a0<\/p>\n

For corporations that may be impacted by a chain split, the main action to take is to lengthen confirmation times and monitor both branches. For node-running corporations that support the BIP, the main action is to start running it on their nodes, if they haven\u2019t already.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Miners, as usual, should direct their hashrate based on their view of which branch will end up with the most accumulated proof of work. Exchanges and custodians should lengthen settlement procedures and maintain visibility into both chains, should a chain split occur.\u00a0For the daily operations of most corporate Bitcoin users, BIP-110 changes very little, if it changes anything at all.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Disclaimer:<\/em><\/strong> This content was prepared on behalf of <\/em>Bitcoin For Corporations<\/em><\/strong><\/a> for informational purposes only. It reflects the author\u2019s own analysis and opinion and should not be relied upon as investment advice. Nothing in this article constitutes an offer, invitation, or solicitation to purchase, sell, or subscribe for any security or financial product.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n<\/p>

This post Corporation\u2019s Approach to the BIP-110 Soft Fork<\/a> first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine<\/a> and is written by Allard Peng<\/a>.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Bitcoin Magazine Corporation\u2019s Approach to the BIP-110 Soft Fork BIP-110 is approaching its first consequential activation boundary. The proposal enters mandatory signaling at block 961,632, currently projected around August 9, 2026. It locks in no later than block 963,648, roughly in late August, and activates its new transaction rules at block 965,664, currently projected for […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":208886,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-208885","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-discovery"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mycryptomania.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208885"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mycryptomania.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mycryptomania.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mycryptomania.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=208885"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mycryptomania.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208885\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mycryptomania.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/208886"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mycryptomania.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=208885"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mycryptomania.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=208885"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mycryptomania.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=208885"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}