Bitcoin Fork August 2026: BIP-110, eCash, Covenants and the Quantum Clock

Bitcoin’s consensus rules have not changed since Taproot activated in November 2021. In August 2026 two protocol events are scheduled days apart: BIP-110, a contested soft fork whose mandatory signaling window falls around 7 August, and eCash, a hard fork targeted at block 964,000 around 21 August. This educational overview sets out what each event involves, what the covenants and post-quantum debates could add later, and which operational questions a Bitcoin fork raises for regulated holders and custodians.

Key takeaways

• Bitcoin’s last consensus change was Taproot, activated in November 2021. Nothing has altered the rules since. It has been the longest quiet stretch in its history.
• The nearest flashpoint is a proposed soft fork, BIP-110, with a decisive signaling window around August 2026. It would limit how much arbitrary data a transaction can carry, and it could bring real chain-split risk because miner support looks thin.
• It will not arrive alone. A separate hard fork called eCash is set to split off days later at block 964,000 (around 21 August) and airdrop a new coin one for one to every bitcoin holder, an echo of the 2017 fight that spun out Bitcoin Cash.
• The deeper debate is about covenants. Proposals such as OP_CTV (BIP 119) and OP_CAT (BIP 347) would make Bitcoin far more programmable, but none has an agreed path to activation, and rival designs appeared in early 2026.
• The clock nobody controls is quantum. A March 2026 Google Quantum AI paper estimated Bitcoin’s signature scheme could be broken with fewer than 500,000 qubits, an order-of-magnitude drop from earlier estimates, moving a post-quantum migration (BIP-360) from “someday” toward “this decade.”

Figure 1: Bitcoin’s 2026 upgrade indicative timeline

Source: AMINA Bank; BIP-110 (bips.dev); CoinDesk; Google Quantum AI, March 2026.

None of these changes sits on a fixed calendar, yet each one lands first as an operational problem, not a trading one. Some things to consider:

• Chain-following policy. Research and understand on your own which chain is canonical in a contested split, and document the criteria (hashrate, developer support, exchange listing) so the decision is not made under pressure.
• Replay protection. A split without strong replay protection means a transaction on one chain can be rebroadcast on the other. Evaluate how eCash and any BIP-110 breakaway handle replay before moving client funds around the event.
• Airdrop and accounting treatment. The IRS treated the free Bitcoin Cash received in 2017 as taxable income at receipt. An eCash airdrop could turn a chain split into a reporting and valuation problem for regulated products well before anyone agrees what the new asset is worth.
• Longer horizon: covenants and quantum. Covenants could move parts of custody logic into the protocol itself, reshaping how vaults are built. A quantum migration would run through qualified custodians and exchanges, because individuals will not coordinate a key rotation of that scale on their own.

The sections below take each event in turn: why Bitcoin has stayed unchanged since 2021, what BIP-110 would restrict, why a second fork lands days later, and what the covenants and post-quantum debates could add over a longer horizon.

There are two ways to change Bitcoin:

• A soft fork: it tightens the rules and stays backward compatible, so nodes that do not upgrade still accept new blocks.
• A hard fork: it loosens or expands the rules and is not backward compatible, so it can split the chain in two.

Bitcoin strongly prefers soft forks, and it sets the activation bar deliberately high: rough consensus is needed across developers, miners, node operators, businesses, and users, and no single group can force a change on the others.

Figure 2: Soft fork versus hard fork

Source: AMINA Bank.

Taproot cleared that bar in 2021, improving Bitcoin’s scripting and privacy. Nothing has cleared it since. There is no chief executive, no foundation that can ship a consensus change on its own, and no roadmap that binds anyone. The result is a protocol that has not shipped a consensus change in more than four years, by design. That conservatism becomes a strain when the world starts asking Bitcoin to do more.

Over the past two years, traders and collectors have used Bitcoin transactions to embed images, text, and tokens directly on the chain, largely through Ordinals and Inscriptions and the Runes token standard, the activity that BIP-110 is written to restrict. To some that is harmless innovation. To others it is spam that bloats the ledger and drifts away from Bitcoin’s purpose.

The disagreement showed up in node software before it reached consensus rules. When the dominant Bitcoin implementation loosened its default limits on storing arbitrary data in transactions, a rival implementation that kept filtering that data gained ground among operators who disagreed. BIP-110 is that same argument escalated from a software preference to a proposed network rule.

BIP-110, formally the Reduced Data Temporary Softfork, would restrict how much arbitrary data a transaction can carry for a one-year trial period. Supporters frame it as defending Bitcoin’s role as sound money and keeping the chain lean. Critics, including Adam Back, the cypherpunk cryptographer whose Hashcash work is cited in the Bitcoin whitepaper, and Jameson Lopp, co-founder of the self-custody firm Casa, frame it as censorship and warn that it risks a chain split. The proposal reaches its mandatory signaling window around August 2026 (block 961,632, estimated 7 August), but miner signaling sat at roughly 0.3% in June 2026 and remained under 1% as of mid-July, far below the 55% threshold that miner-driven lock-in would require. On those numbers, the likelier outcome is a small breakaway chain rather than a network-wide change.

It also does not arrive alone. A separate eCash hard fork is scheduled to split off just days later, so two contentious protocol events land inside the same narrow window. Large regulated holders, including spot ETFs, may decide not to take an active part in either, but they still have to plan for the fallout, and the pairing carries an echo of Bitcoin’s last civil war worth understanding on its own.

The eCash fork is the cleaner of the two events, and the more revealing. It is the work of Paul Sztorc, a developer who spent years trying to add his sidechain design to Bitcoin through a soft fork and, worn down by the politics, chose to leave rather than keep arguing. Targeted at block 964,000, around 21 August 2026, eCash is a near-copy of Bitcoin Core that keeps the same mining algorithm and hands every bitcoin holder a matching balance on the new chain, one for one, at the instant of the split. On top of that base it switches on Drivechain, a set of sidechains meant to host decentralised exchanges, prediction markets, privacy features, and quantum-resistant tools without touching the main chain.

The name is a deliberate piece of history. Satoshi Nakamoto circulated the earliest draft of the Bitcoin whitepaper under the filename ecash.pdf, and the economist Milton Friedman used the same word in 1999 to describe the digital cash he thought the internet would eventually need. Sztorc is claiming that lineage on purpose.

2017 vs 2026: how this split is different

Figure 3: The 2017 split versus the 2026 forks

Source: AMINA Bank; CoinDesk.

For anyone who lived through 2017, the shape of all this will feel familiar. That summer Bitcoin split after a long war over block size, spinning off Bitcoin Cash and giving every holder a 1:1 balance on the new chain, the same mechanic eCash will use. The same crisis produced a user-activated soft fork, BIP 148, which threatened to reject any block that did not enforce the new rules. The difference this time is that there is little sign of comparable rival factions, which is why most observers expect small breakaway chains rather than another civil war.

No exchange or custodian is obliged to support a forked chain, and support is decided provider by provider rather than announced network-wide. The proposal’s own materials describe a coin-splitter tool intended to help holders separate their BTC from any new eCash balance after the split, and a launch client that would be frozen roughly a month before the fork date, according to CoinDesk’s coverage. Many regulated mandates, including a number of spot ETF prospectuses, restrict or prohibit holding a forked asset at all, so a credited balance may never be claimed. Whether a balance is claimable, and on what timeline, depends on the custodian or exchange holding the coins. Nothing here describes how any particular provider, including AMINA, would treat a forked asset.

Neither event requires anything of a holder at the protocol level: coins on the dominant chain stay on the dominant chain. Two technical details are still worth knowing. First, BIP-110’s published materials note that outputs created before activation would be permanently exempt from the new data limits, and that wallets building unusually complex spending scripts may need to update before activation, with a short grace period afterwards, per the proposal’s own documentation. Second, in a split without strong replay protection, a transaction broadcast on one chain can be rebroadcast on the other, which is a custody engineering question rather than a user-facing one.

That makes the useful preparation informational rather than transactional. The questions a provider should be able to answer in writing are which chain it treats as canonical, how it handles replay, whether it intends to claim any airdropped asset, and how it would value and report one if it did.

Behind the data fight sits a much older ambition: making Bitcoin more programmable without breaking what makes it Bitcoin. Covenants are the central idea. A covenant is a rule attached to a coin that constrains how it can be spent in the future, for example an output that can only move to a pre-agreed set of addresses. That single capability unlocks vaults, which are custody arrangements with built-in guardrails, along with safer Lightning channels and trust-minimised bridges.

Figure 4: OP_CTV versus OP_CAT compared

Source: AMINA Bank; Galaxy Research; bips.dev (BIP 347).

For institutions, vaults are the part that matters. Withdrawal limits, time delays, and pre-approved destination addresses are controls that already exist inside every custodian, but they live in the operator’s own systems and depend on the operator enforcing them correctly. Covenants would let those same rules be written into Bitcoin script, where the network enforces them. That moves part of the control framework from operational policy to something enforceable on-chain, which is a different assurance model even where the day-to-day workflow looks unchanged.

Whether that happens, and when, is unresolved. OP_CAT reached “Complete” specification status in March 2026 and has been tested heavily on signet, but a finished specification is not the same as agreement to activate. Fresh competing proposals appeared in early 2026, and multiple credible designs fighting for the same slot can push activation further out while the community tries to converge on one path. Nothing here is a 2026 planning item. It is worth tracking because it changes what custody can look like, not because a decision is imminent.

The slowest-moving but most consequential upgrade is the one aimed at quantum computers. Bitcoin proves ownership with elliptic-curve signatures. A sufficiently powerful quantum computer could derive a private key from an exposed public key and spend coins that are not its own. For years this was treated as a distant concern. In March 2026 a Google Quantum AI whitepaper estimated that a machine with fewer than 500,000 noisy qubits could break that cryptography, roughly a twentyfold reduction from earlier estimates, and the timeline stopped looking theoretical.

The exposure is not evenly spread. Coins are vulnerable mainly when their public key is already visible on-chain, which applies to older pay-to-public-key outputs and any address that has been reused after spending. The same research put the amount of bitcoin sitting in exposed or reused-key addresses at roughly 6.9 million BTC, about a third of the circulating supply, including many of the earliest mined outputs.

The response is a proposed post-quantum soft fork, most concretely BIP-360, which introduces quantum-resistant spending paths. Writing the code is not the hard part. Migration is. Moving that many coins into quantum-safe scripts would be the largest coordinated key rotation Bitcoin has ever attempted, and coins whose owners are lost or inactive may never move at all.

None of the proposals on the table in 2026 is likely to change Bitcoin this year. BIP-110 is signaling near zero, OP_CAT is specified but contested, and quantum migration is a multi-year programme that has not properly started. The exposure for institutions is therefore not the fork itself. It is whether the infrastructure holding their Bitcoin has a written, tested answer for what it would do if one happened. That is a question worth asking a custodian now, while it is still hypothetical.

What is the next Bitcoin upgrade?

There is no single upgrade scheduled the way Ethereum schedules them. The nearest concrete event is the proposed BIP-110 soft fork in August 2026. The larger debates are covenants (OP_CTV and OP_CAT) and a future post-quantum migration (BIP-360).

When is the BIP-110 soft fork?

The BIP-110 soft fork will enter a signaling window around August 2026. Because miner support looks limited, activation is not guaranteed and a chain split may be possible.

Will the BIP-110 fork crash Bitcoin’s price?

A thinly supported fork usually produces a small breakaway chain rather than a network-wide disruption, and major regulated holders are unlikely to take an active part. The larger risk is operational (custody, replay, accounting) rather than a direct hit to Bitcoin’s price, though contentious forks can add short-term volatility.

Do Bitcoin holders get free eCash coins?

At the moment of the split, eCash may credit every bitcoin holder a matching balance one for one on the new chain. Whether and how that new coin can be claimed and used depends on your custodian or exchange supporting it, and in some jurisdictions the receipt could be taxable.

Is my Bitcoin safe during a chain split?

A chain split does not remove coins from the chain a holder already sits on, and outputs created before a BIP-110 activation would be permanently exempt from its data limits. The risks that matter are operational rather than existential: replay of transactions across chains where protection is weak, wallet or node software that has not been updated, and the reporting treatment of any new asset that appears. Those sit with custodians, exchanges and wallet providers rather than with the protocol.

Which exchanges and custodians will support eCash?

Support for a forked chain is decided provider by provider and is not announced network-wide. Many regulated mandates restrict or prohibit holding a forked asset, so some providers may never claim a credited balance. The only reliable answer comes from the custodian or exchange that holds the coins.

What are Ordinals and Runes, and why do they matter to this fork?

Ordinals and Inscriptions embed data such as images and text into Bitcoin transactions, and Runes is a token standard built on the same idea. The growth of this on-chain data is the core reason BIP-110 exists, because supporters want to limit it.

What is the eCash Bitcoin fork?

eCash is a hard fork of Bitcoin proposed by Paul Sztorc, targeted for around 21 August 2026 at block 964,000. It creates a separate chain, gives every bitcoin holder a 1:1 balance of the new coin, and switches on Drivechain sidechains. It is a deliberate split rather than an attempt to change Bitcoin itself.

What is Drivechain?

Drivechain is a sidechain design that lets separate chains hold and return bitcoin without changing the main chain, intended to host features like decentralised exchanges, prediction markets, and privacy or quantum-resistant tools. eCash switches it on at launch.

What are Bitcoin covenants?

Covenants are rules that restrict how a coin can be spent in the future. They can enable vaults, safer Lightning payments, and trust-minimised bridges. OP_CTV and OP_CAT are the leading proposals to add them.

What is the difference between OP_CTV and OP_CAT?

OP_CTV (BIP 119) is narrow and commits a coin to a predefined spending template. OP_CAT (BIP 347) is broader, reviving a disabled opcode that lets scripts join data together and opening a wider design space, with a correspondingly larger security surface to review.

Will quantum computers break Bitcoin?

Not yet. But a March 2026 research estimate sharply lowered the hardware thought necessary, which is why a post-quantum upgrade (BIP-360) is now taken seriously. The main challenge is migrating existing coins with exposed public keys to quantum-safe addresses.

How does a Bitcoin fork affect ETFs and institutional holders?

The ETF stays on the dominant chain and continues to track it. The work sits with the custodian, not the investor. Custodians have to plan for a chain split: implementing replay protection so a transaction on one chain cannot be rebroadcast on the other, deciding whether to claim any airdropped asset at all (most regulated mandates do not permit holding it), and handling the tax treatment if they do, since airdropped coins are likely to be treated as income at receipt. Quantum migration is the version of this problem that will eventually affect every holder rather than a breakaway minority, and it runs through the same custodial plumbing. The question to ask a provider is not “what happens in a fork” but “show me your documented fork policy.”

When was the last Bitcoin upgrade?

Taproot, in November 2021. Nothing has changed since. That gap of more than four years is the point: Bitcoin’s rules move slowly by design, which is why the 2026 proposals are drawing attention.

Disclaimer: Research and Educational Content

This document has been prepared by AMINA Bank AG (“AMINA”). AMINA is a Swiss licensed bank and securities dealer with its head office and legal domicile in Switzerland. It is authorised and regulated by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (“FINMA”).

This document is published solely for educational purposes; it is not an advertisement nor a solicitation or an offer to buy or sell any financial investment or to participate in any particular investment strategy. This document is for publication only on AMINA website, blog, and AMINA social media accounts as permitted by applicable law. It is not directed to, or intended for distribution to or use by, any person or entity who is a citizen or resident of or located in any locality, state, country or other jurisdiction where such distribution, publication, availability or use would be contrary to law or regulation or would subject AMINA to any registration or licensing requirement within such jurisdiction.

Research will initiate, update and cease coverage solely at the discretion of AMINA. This document is based on various sources, incl. AMINA ones. In preparing this document, AMINA may have made limited use of artificial intelligence-enabled tools to assist with research, summarisation, and drafting, with all content subject to human review and validation.

No representation or warranty, either express or implied, is provided in relation to the accuracy, completeness or reliability of the information contained in this document, except with respect to information concerning AMINA. The information is not intended to be a complete statement or summary of the subjects alluded to in the document, whereas general information, financial investments, markets or developments. AMINA does not undertake to update or keep current information. Any statements contained in this document attributed to a third party represent AMINA’s interpretation of the data, information and/or opinions provided by that third party either publicly or through a subscription service, and such use and interpretation have not been reviewed by the third party.

Any formulas, equations, or prices stated in this document are for informational or explanatory purposes only and do not represent valuations for individual investments. There is no representation that any transaction can or could have been affected at those formulas, equations, or prices, and any formula(s), equation(s), or price(s) do not necessarily reflect AMINA’s internal books and records or theoretical model-based valuations and may be based on certain assumptions. Different assumptions by AMINA or any other source may yield substantially different results.

Nothing in this document constitutes a representation that any investment strategy or investment is suitable or appropriate to an investor’s individual circumstances or otherwise constitutes a personal recommendation. Investments involve risks, and investors should exercise prudence and their own judgment in making their investment decisions. Financial investments described in the document may not be eligible for sale in all jurisdictions or to certain categories of investors. Certain services and products are subject to legal restrictions and cannot be offered on an unrestricted basis to certain investors. Recipients are therefore asked to consult the restrictions relating to investments, products or services for further information. Furthermore, recipients may consult their legal/tax advisors should they require any clarifications.

At any time, investment decisions (including, among others, deposit, buy, sell or hold investments) made by AMINA and its employees may differ from or be contrary to the opinions expressed in AMINA research publications.

This document may not be reproduced, or copies circulated without prior authority of AMINA. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, AMINA expressly prohibits the distribution and transfer of this document to third parties for any reason. AMINA accepts no liability whatsoever for any claims or lawsuits from any third parties arising from the use or distribution of this document.

©2026 AMINA, Kolinplatz 15, 6300 Zug