Crypto Breaking

For years, banks ignored stablecoins. Then they tried to regulate them. Now they’re buying them for $1.8 billion. That’s not adoption. That’s capitulation.
The Acquisition Nobody’s Framing Correctly
Mastercard just acquired BVNK for $1.8 billion.
The headlines called it a “strategic move into digital payments.” A “bold bet on stablecoins.” An “expansion of Mastercard’s crypto infrastructure.”
All technically accurate. All missing the point.
Here’s the correct framing: one of the most powerful financial institutions on the planet just paid $1.8 billion to buy something it spent years trying to make irrelevant.
That’s not a strategic move. That’s a surrender with a press release.
What BVNK Actually Is
BVNK is a stablecoin infrastructure company. It allows businesses to send, receive, and settle payments using stablecoins, without the friction of traditional banking rails.
It’s fast. It’s global. It settles in seconds, not days. It doesn’t close on weekends. It doesn’t charge $25 wire fees. It doesn’t require the sender and receiver to have accounts at the same institution or even the same country.
In other words: it does everything that Mastercard’s network does, but without Mastercard.
That’s what Mastercard just paid $1.8 billion for.
Not to build better technology. To eliminate a competitor before it eliminated them.
The Timeline Of Denial
To understand what this acquisition means, you have to understand how long it took the traditional finance world to take stablecoins seriously.
2018-2019: Stablecoins are dismissed as a crypto curiosity. Useful for traders to park funds between positions. Not a real payments threat.
2020: USDC and Tether volumes start growing. Banks notice but frame it as a niche use case. “Real businesses use real banks.”
2021: Stablecoin transaction volumes surpass Visa’s annual volume for the first time. Banks start paying attention, not to adopt, but to lobby against.
2022-2023: Regulatory pressure mounts. Banks argue stablecoins are unsafe, unregulated, a systemic risk. The implicit message: regulate them out of existence.
2024: Stablecoins settle $46 trillion annually. The regulatory campaign fails. Congress starts moving toward legitimizing stablecoins rather than banning them.
2025: JPMorgan, Citigroup, and others begin building their own stablecoin products. The strategy shifts from “kill it” to “become it.”
2026: Mastercard pays $1.8 billion for BVNK.
That’s not a story about innovation. That’s a story about an industry losing a war and buying peace.
Why $1.8 Billion Is An Admission
Every acquisition has a story underneath the press release. Usually it’s one of three things:
Acqui-hire: We want your team. The product is secondary.
Market access: We want your customers. Cheaper to buy than build.
Threat elimination: You were going to hurt us. Now you won’t.
The BVNK acquisition is the third.
BVNK wasn’t just building a payments product. It was building a payments product that didn’t need Mastercard. Its infrastructure routes around the card networks entirely, no interchange fees, no network rails, no Mastercard.
Mastercard paying $1.8 billion for BVNK doesn’t add BVNK’s technology to Mastercard’s arsenal. It removes BVNK’s technology from the competitive landscape.
That’s what $1.8 billion buys: the absence of a threat.
What Mastercard Is Actually Afraid Of
Mastercard’s business model is elegant and simple: sit between buyers and sellers, charge a small percentage of every transaction that crosses your network, and collect that fee billions of times per day.
The model has worked for 60 years because there was no alternative. If you wanted to accept payments, you needed a card network. Period.
Stablecoins are the first credible alternative.
A merchant who accepts USDC doesn’t pay interchange fees. A business that settles invoices in stablecoins doesn’t need a correspondent bank. A company that pays international contractors in stablecoins bypasses the entire wire transfer system.
Every transaction that settles on stablecoin rails is a transaction that doesn’t cross Mastercard’s network.
At $46 trillion in annual stablecoin volume and growing, this isn’t a rounding error. It’s an existential question about whether the card network model survives the next decade.
Mastercard’s answer: buy the infrastructure before it scales beyond reach.
The Pattern Across Financial Services
Mastercard isn’t alone. The pattern is consistent across traditional finance:
JPMorgan spent years dismissing Bitcoin, then launched its own blockchain (JPM Coin), then integrated crypto products for wealth clients.
BlackRock called Bitcoin a “money laundering index” in 2017. It now manages $175 billion in Bitcoin ETF products.
PayPal fought crypto regulation for years. Now it issues its own stablecoin (PYUSD).
Visa called Bitcoin “not a payment system.” Now it runs stablecoin settlement pilots.
The sequence is always the same: dismissal → regulation attempts → failed regulation → build your own → acquire the competition.
Every institution eventually reaches the same conclusion: the technology works. The users want it. You can’t stop it. So you buy it.
BVNK at $1.8 billion is just the latest data point in a pattern that’s been playing out for five years.
What This Means For Crypto’s Future
The BVNK acquisition has implications beyond a single deal.
Stablecoins are no longer a crypto product. When Mastercard pays $1.8 billion for stablecoin infrastructure, stablecoins become financial infrastructure. The distinction between “crypto” and “payments” collapses.
The regulatory argument shifts. Banks argued that stablecoins were dangerous because they were unregulated. Now that banks are buying stablecoin companies, that argument becomes self-undermining. You can’t argue an asset class is too dangerous to exist while simultaneously acquiring it.
The innovation cycle accelerates. When incumbents start buying challengers, the challengers that weren’t acquired build faster. BVNK being acquired doesn’t eliminate the threat; it signals to every stablecoin startup that they’re worth acquiring. That’s fuel for more innovation, not less.
The price of independence goes up. Every stablecoin startup just got a new benchmark. If BVNK is worth $1.8 billion to Mastercard, what’s the next one worth? The acquisition creates a market for exactly the kind of infrastructure banks are trying to buy.
The Irony Worth Noting
The entire premise of crypto was disintermediation. Remove the middlemen. Let value move directly between people without banks taking a cut.
Now Mastercard, the quintessential financial middleman, owns a stablecoin company.
The technology that was supposed to eliminate Mastercard is now inside Mastercard.
That’s not a failure of crypto. That’s what happens when technology works well enough that the incumbents can’t ignore it. They integrate it, wrap it in their existing infrastructure, and charge for access.
This is what happened to the internet. The open web became the platform economy. Free communication became mediated by Google, Facebook, and Amazon. The technology remained. The disintermediation didn’t.
Stablecoins are following the same path. The technology is real. The utility is proven. And now the institutions are buying it, which means they’ll also control access to it.
Whether that’s good or bad depends on what you thought stablecoins were for.
The Question Crypto Has To Answer
If Mastercard owns BVNK, and JPMorgan owns its blockchain, and PayPal issues its own stablecoin, at what point does “crypto” just become “finance with better infrastructure”?
That’s not a rhetorical question. It has real implications for everyone who believed in the original premise: a financial system that doesn’t require institutional permission.
Every acquisition of a crypto company by a traditional institution is a step toward a world where the technology is decentralized but the access is not.
You can use stablecoins, as long as you use the ones Mastercard controls. You can hold Bitcoin, as long as you hold it through a BlackRock ETF. You can access DeFi, as long as you access it through a compliant on-ramp.
The rails are being bought. One acquisition at a time.
What Comes Next
Expect more acquisitions. Not because traditional finance suddenly loves crypto. Because the alternative, competing against it, is increasingly expensive.
BVNK at $1.8 billion is a bargain compared to what it would cost Mastercard to lose 10% of global payment volume to stablecoin rails over the next five years.
This is how incumbent industries absorb disruption: not by fighting it, but by buying it.
The crypto industry should take note. Because every acquisition is also a validation and a warning.
Validated: the technology works. The use case is real. The value is undeniable.
Warning: the infrastructure you built to escape the system is being bought by the system.
The question is whether there’s enough left outside the perimeter to still call it a revolution.
This article was originally published as Mastercard Just Paid $1.8 Billion For A Stablecoin Startup on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Quantum computing is increasingly framed as a looming break in the cryptography that underpins major blockchains, but one overlooked risk is operational: an attacker may not need to hack exchanges or wallets in the usual way. Instead, a sufficiently powerful quantum computer could derive private keys directly from public data on-chain, enabling theft without triggering clear evidence of a “cryptographic break,” according to Christopher Smith, CEO and co-founder of blockchain security startup Quantus Network.
Smith’s comments highlight why so-called “Q-day” — the moment when quantum machines can realistically defeat widely used public-key systems — could look less like a dramatic breach and more like confusing, untraceable losses. Combined with rapid progress in quantum-related research and algorithmic improvements, the discussion is shifting from whether quantum attacks are possible to how quickly they may become practically actionable.
Key takeaways
Quantum attacks may be hard to detect because compromising keys via public information could leave little or no forensic trace of “how” funds were stolen.
Early targets might not be the most famous holdings; researchers point to high-value administrative keys and hot-wallet access as more likely first moves.
Estimates for when quantum systems can break elliptic-curve cryptography vary widely, with uncertainty still high across industry leaders.
Several teams are already preparing post-quantum signature migrations, reflecting a view that waiting for certainty is not an option.
Why quantum theft could evade traditional incident response
In conventional attacks, a breach often leaves clues—malware, compromised systems, exposed credentials, or unusual access patterns. Smith argues that a quantum-enabled key derivation would be different. “When someone cracks your key, you don’t get a memo saying how they did it,” he told Cointelegraph.
In his scenario, an attacker could use the public keys available on-chain to infer the corresponding private keys using quantum computation, then move funds without necessarily breaching the victim’s internal infrastructure. This creates a high-stakes detection problem: even well-run organizations might only discover the problem after funds have already been drained, while forensic teams see no “breach” in the traditional sense.
Smith described this as potentially producing a confusing outcome where “the only forensic evidence would be that there was no breach.” For investors, exchanges, custody providers, and institutional operators, that distinction matters: if incident response teams are trained to look for signs of intrusion, they may need new playbooks designed around cryptographic compromise rather than system compromise.
What attackers might go after first
The public debate around Q-day often centers on Bitcoin and the fear that dormant holdings could suddenly become vulnerable. Cointelegraph notes that Satoshi Nakamoto’s estimated holdings are often cited in the tens of billions, with one reference in the report placing the figure at $63 billion at the time of writing. Smith’s framing, however, suggests the first targets might be different and could be driven by attacker economics and operational convenience rather than symbolic value.
He argued that state-grade targets could be prioritized, pointing to “military systems and state secrets.” Within crypto specifically, he suggested that the highest-value keys might be operational or administrative rather than widely celebrated. “If I’m focusing on blockchain, what’s the single most valuable key? It’s probably Tether’s minting key,” Smith said.
His reasoning is that a quantum-capable attacker might mint tokens from an administrative wallet and sell into the market before the issuer can fully react. The report further notes that USDT is multi-chain and that some networks supporting its issuance are already working on post-quantum migration efforts.
Security researcher Sean Cheetham from Blockchain Capital added another angle: rather than aiming at the most famous cold wallets, attackers could focus on hot wallets at exchanges. In his view, those targets are more likely to avoid triggering alarm bells because their access patterns can resemble ordinary operational risk.
Smith also described an alternative tactic: a quantum-enabled theft could be disguised through plausible deniability. He suggested an attacker might present the incident as an ordinary loss of keys, using the uncertainty of how the keys were compromised to reduce the chance of immediate escalation.
How the timeline for Q-day keeps slipping and sharpening
One reason Q-day remains difficult to plan for is that timelines are unsettled. The report highlights recent developments that have compressed estimates for when quantum machines could attack elliptic-curve cryptography.
It points to a March update in which Google accelerated a post-quantum migration timeline to 2029, citing an AI-assisted breakthrough indicating elliptic curve cryptography could be cracked with fewer physical qubits than previously thought. Cointelegraph also attributes an explanation for why forecasts may have missed the mark to the parallel growth of AI-assisted approaches to quantum problem-solving.
Still, consensus is lacking. Smith, whose company is building a blockchain network intended to be quantum-resistant from launch, said there is a “50-50” chance the capability arrives by 2028, while Cheetham expects the early 2030s as “almost a certainty” and frames an earlier arrival as a trailing probability.
Michael Coates, chief information security officer at the Solana Foundation, declined to give a precise estimate during an earlier interview, saying “there’s no way to know,” while noting that industry discussions have often treated quantum timelines as “five years away” for much longer than a decade. He added that while uncertainty should temper prediction, it should not delay action.
Across these views, the common theme is not a shared date but a shared urgency: improving forecasts may be faster than compliance cycles and security migrations, so teams are trying to reduce dependency on assumptions.
Post-quantum migrations are already becoming the default security posture
Even with timeline disagreement, the report emphasizes that blockchains are not waiting for a clear verdict. It quotes NGRAVE CEO Roy Blackstone arguing that threat models have underestimated how quickly AI could advance alongside quantum technology, but regardless of exact timing, the migration work is underway.
Smith said Quantus is focused on launching a blockchain designed to be quantum-resistant from the outset, reflecting a “bake it in” approach rather than a last-minute retrofit. Blackstone similarly stressed that damage would be “catastrophic” if systems did not migrate, and that blockchains have begun shifting toward post-quantum signatures.
For market participants, this creates a different way to think about quantum risk. Instead of treating Q-day as a single future cliff, readers may need to evaluate how resilient different networks are today—particularly whether they rely heavily on legacy public-key schemes, and whether migration strategies are actively implemented across critical components.
What to watch next is less about a single predicted year and more about measurable migration progress: whether major ecosystems complete post-quantum signature adoption in a verifiable way, and whether security teams update incident response procedures to account for cryptographic compromise that may not look like a conventional breach.
This article was originally published as Quantus Founder: First Crypto Quantum Attack May Mimic a Breach on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin (BTC) briefly crossed $65,000 early on Monday, holding its gains over the weekend and reporting an increase of nearly 4% over the past week. Bulls defended key levels during last week’s pullback, but the flagship cryptocurrency remains well below its 100-day EMA at $66,905.
Ethereum (ETH) and Ripple (XRP) are also showing positive signs. ETH is up 3.60% over the past seven days, while XRP held above $1, posting a marginal recovery after a significant 5% decline.
Bitcoin (BTC) Above $65,000
Bitcoin (BTC) closed July with a substantial decline of almost 3% to $62,825. The price rebounded on Sunday (August 2) to reclaim $63,000 but registered another substantial decline on Monday ($62,743) before rebounding to $63,466 as buyers and sellers struggled to exert influence. Buyers gained control on Tuesday, and the flagship cryptocurrency reached $64,891 on Friday (August 7), driven by a weaker-than-expected jobs report that eased concerns about another interest rate hike. CoinGlass data shows Spot Bitcoin ETFs also registered substantial inflows, supporting price action, while whale accumulation provided support.
BTC is currently trading above $65,000, above the 50-day EMA. However, it remains below the 100 and 200-day EMAs, suggesting near-term strength within a larger downtrend. The Relative Strength Index (RSI) sits between 50 and 55, suggesting a slight bullish bias, while the Moving Average Convergence Divergence (MACD) indicates a gradual build-up of buying pressure.
BTC continues to face resistance at the 100 and 200-day EMAs. A close above these levels could suggest the market is entering a long-term bullish trend. On the other hand, if BTC loses the $64,000 level, it could start a deeper correction, taking the price closer to $60,000. A drop below this level could trigger liquidations and spark marketwide panic.
Markets Positive
Ethereum (ETH) and other cryptocurrencies also traded in positive territory, with the exception of Ripple (XRP), which is down 3% over the past week. ETH crossed $1,900 last week, reaching a day high of $1,932 on August 7. The world’s second-largest cryptocurrency is currently trading at $1,925, just above its 100-day EMA of $1,924. A decisive close above this level could fuel a push towards $2,000, a level not seen since May 2026. BNB is up nearly 4% over the past week, while Solana (SOL) is up almost 6% as it continues building momentum. The overall crypto market cap is also positive, up 0.32% to $2.21 trillion, according to data from CoinMarketCap.
Traditional markets also traded in positive territory, with the MSCI All Country World Index rising 0.1%. Japan’s Nikkei and South Korea’s Kospi also recorded substantial gains, while a softer-than-expected jobs report pushed the S&P 500 to record levels. Among chipmakers, Taiwan Semiconductor and SK Hynix also recorded positive movement.
Brent briefly crossed $84 before a marginal decline to $83.60 after US-Iran talks to reopen the Strait of Hormuz bore little fruit. Meanwhile, the US Dollar strengthened against other major global currencies, and the 10-year yield reached 4.66%.
A Closer Look At Ripple (XRP) Price Action
Ripple (XRP) has seen substantial movement over the past week. The altcoin recorded a sharp decline last week, falling over 5%. However, it held above $1 and made a marginal recovery over the weekend. XRP is currently trading around $1.03, well below the 50-day EMA at $1.10, which is acting as the immediate resistance. The RSI is around 39, while the MACD is negative, indicating a near-term bearish bias. XRP has strong support at $1, a level where buyers could step in and stop the downtrend.
A Crucial Week
A wave of market data is due this week, starting with Wednesday’s Consumer Price Report (CPI) data following Friday’s jobs report. The data could help gauge whether the market has withstood geopolitical headwinds after a noticeable improvement in June. CPI fell in June, but the resumption of conflicts in the Middle East could impact the July report. Energy prices have risen again after oil shipments through the State of Hormuz and the Bab el-Mandeb were impacted, pressuring the price of other goods as well.
Producer Price Index (PPI) data is due on Thursday. PPI numbers were higher than expected in May but declined in June. An increase could indicate that prices will rise as businesses pass rising expenses to consumers. Weekly jobless claim data is due Thursday, while retail and consumer sentiment data is expected on Friday.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin (BTC) Crosses $65,000, Ethereum (ETH) Eyes Possible Breakout, Markets Face Crucial Week on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Australia’s financial crime watchdog has ordered Cryptolink’s Bitcoin ATM network offline for three months, citing unresolved compliance concerns under anti-money laundering rules.
According to the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC), the suspension of Cryptolink’s Virtual Asset Service Provider (VASP) registration—effective for a three-month period starting Sunday—means the company’s crypto ATMs will not be permitted to operate during that time. The move comes as Australian regulators have intensified scrutiny of crypto ATM activity, including alleged misuse by criminals.
Key takeaways
AUSTRAC suspended Cryptolink’s VASP registration for three months, taking its crypto ATMs out of service during the suspension.
The regulator cited failures to meet basic reporting obligations, especially threshold transaction reports, and said the company did not respond to information requests.
AUSTRAC said it remains concerned about the ability to manage “high-risk transactions” through crypto ATMs (CATMs).
The action follows prior enforcement steps in 2025, including an enforceable undertaking tied to alleged late reporting and risk assessment gaps.
AUSTRAC suspends Cryptolink’s ability to operate
AUSTRAC CEO Brendan Thomas said Monday that Cryptolink’s VASP registration has been suspended for three months, beginning Sunday. In practical terms, the suspension prevents Cryptolink’s Bitcoin ATMs from operating because the company lacks active authorization to provide virtual asset services during the period.
AUSTRAC also pointed to specific compliance shortfalls. The regulator said Cryptolink failed to satisfy core reporting requirements, “particularly threshold transaction reports.” AUSTRAC added that the company did not respond to the regulator’s request for information—an issue that, in AUSTRAC’s framing, compounded the broader monitoring and oversight concerns.
“As part of our continued focus on digital currency as a money laundering risk, AUSTRAC has ongoing concerns about the company’s ability to manage high-risk transactions through its CATMs,” Thomas said.
Why regulators are targeting crypto ATMs
Australia has the highest concentration of crypto ATMs across the Asia-Pacific region, and regulators have been focused on how these machines can be exploited for illicit activity. AUSTRAC’s latest action underscores that the compliance expectations for crypto ATM operators are not merely formalities; they are intended to prevent gaps in reporting and oversight that can enable money laundering.
Late 2024 onward, authorities have increasingly discussed criminal use of crypto ATMs, including cases involving the targeting of vulnerable users. Against that backdrop, the operational suspension of a major ATM operator signals that regulators are willing to use enforcement tools that immediately restrict market access when compliance standards are not met.
Enforcement history: from an undertaking to a paid infringement notice
AUSTRAC’s decision does not arrive in isolation. The suspension follows steps taken in 2025 after issues were identified during Cryptolink’s compliance review process.
In October 2025, Cryptolink entered an enforceable undertaking with AUSTRAC after its Cryptocurrency Taskforce identified alleged breaches. AUSTRAC cited issues including late transaction reporting and shortcomings in Cryptolink’s risk assessments. The undertaking was accompanied by further enforcement: AUSTRAC also issued a $56,340 infringement notice, which Cryptolink paid.
While the October 2025 undertaking and infringement notice reflect earlier remedial and punitive measures, Monday’s suspension indicates AUSTRAC still viewed compliance performance as insufficient—particularly around reporting to AUSTRAC and responsiveness to information requests.
What the suspension means for users and the ATM footprint
Cryptolink operates 96 ATMs in Australia, enabling customers to exchange cash for Bitcoin. The network includes machines in major cities such as Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane.
During the three-month suspension window, these ATMs will be prevented from operating because AUSTRAC has removed the company’s ability to run as a VASP under its registration. That restriction affects not just new transactions but also ongoing consumer access to crypto acquisition through ATM channels.
Cointelegraph contacted Cryptolink for comment, but the company’s response was not included in the information provided with AUSTRAC’s announcement.
What to watch next
Crypto ATM operators in Australia—and users who rely on them—will be looking closely at whether Cryptolink can address AUSTRAC’s specific concerns around threshold reporting, high-risk transaction controls, and regulatory engagement. The suspension ends after three months, but the key question is whether the underlying compliance gaps that AUSTRAC described are actually resolved in time to restore authorization.
This article was originally published as Australia Forces Cryptolink Bitcoin ATMs Offline for Reporting Gaps on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Australia’s financial crime regulator AUSTRAC has suspended the operation of Cryptolink’s Bitcoin ATMs for three months, citing ongoing concerns about the company’s compliance with anti-money laundering obligations. The decision pauses Cryptolink’s ability to run as a registered Virtual Asset Service Provider (VASP), effectively taking its crypto ATMs offline during the suspension period.
With Australia hosting the highest number of crypto ATMs in the Asia-Pacific region, the move underscores the regulator’s continued focus on reducing illicit activity linked to automated cash-to-crypto access—especially as authorities have escalated scrutiny of the sector since late 2024.
Key takeaways
AUSTRAC suspended Cryptolink’s VASP registration for three months, meaning its Bitcoin ATMs cannot operate during that timeframe.
The regulator cited failures to meet core reporting expectations, including threshold transaction reports, and noted the company did not respond to AUSTRAC requests.
AUSTRAC said it has “ongoing concerns” about Cryptolink’s ability to manage high-risk transactions through its ATMs.
The action follows prior enforcement steps tied to alleged late reporting and weaknesses in Cryptolink’s risk assessments.
Cryptolink operates 96 ATMs across major Australian cities, offering cash-to-Bitcoin exchanges.
AUSTRAC suspends Cryptolink’s VASP registration
AUSTRAC CEO Brendan Thomas said the suspension begins Sunday and will last three months. According to AUSTRAC, Cryptolink’s registration as a Virtual Asset Service Provider has been halted, which directly prevents its cryptocurrency ATMs from operating while the order is in effect.
In a statement, Thomas linked the decision to what AUSTRAC described as ongoing concerns regarding Cryptolink’s capacity to handle high-risk activity associated with digital asset transactions. The regulator emphasized that its scrutiny centers on digital currency as a potential money laundering risk, particularly in contexts where cash can be converted into crypto through automated systems.
What AUSTRAC says went wrong
AUSTRAC said Cryptolink failed to meet basic compliance and reporting requirements. The regulator highlighted shortcomings in threshold transaction reporting, a category of submissions that helps authorities identify larger or otherwise significant transactions that may warrant additional attention under anti-money laundering frameworks.
AUSTRAC also stated that Cryptolink did not respond to a request for information from the agency. While the details of the request are not included in the available coverage, the combination of reporting failures and non-response was positioned as a core reason behind the suspension.
“As part of our continued focus on digital currency as a money laundering risk, AUSTRAC has ongoing concerns about the company’s ability to manage high-risk transactions through its CATMs,” Thomas said.
Enforcement background: October 2025 undertaking and a fine
The suspension does not appear as an isolated action. AUSTRAC noted that the move follows an enforceable undertaking Cryptolink entered into in October 2025, after a Cryptocurrency Taskforce identified alleged breaches. AUSTRAC cited alleged late transaction reporting and shortcomings in Cryptolink’s risk assessments as part of that earlier compliance outcome.
AUSTRAC also referenced a separate infringement notice issued to Cryptolink, which AUSTRAC said amounted to $56,340. Cryptolink paid the notice. Together, these steps indicate a regulatory pattern: initial enforcement and corrective expectations in 2025, followed by a further escalation once AUSTRAC concluded its concerns were not resolved.
Earlier AUSTRAC reporting about Cryptolink’s issues has also focused on late reporting, reflecting the regulator’s interest in whether transaction monitoring and reporting systems are robust enough to detect and flag suspicious activity in time.
Cryptolink’s ATM footprint and the compliance ripple effect
Cryptolink operates 96 ATMs in Australia. Its machines are concentrated in major cities, including Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane, enabling users to exchange cash for Bitcoin.
For everyday customers, the immediate impact is straightforward: with the suspension in place, Cryptolink’s ATMs should not be able to operate during the three-month window. For the broader market, the development highlights how compliance enforcement can translate into practical restrictions on on-the-ground access to crypto services—turning regulatory findings into operational downtime.
For investors and industry participants, the case is also a reminder that registration status can change quickly when regulators conclude that reporting systems, responses to information requests, or risk controls are inadequate. In a market where crypto ATMs have expanded across multiple jurisdictions, enforcement actions like this can affect how operators prioritize compliance tooling and internal controls, particularly around transaction monitoring and threshold reporting obligations.
Cointelegraph reached out to Cryptolink for comment; no additional response was included in the provided material.
As the suspension period progresses, the key question for readers will be whether Cryptolink can address the specific reporting and risk management concerns AUSTRAC raised—and what AUSTRAC will require to restore the ability for its machines to run. Operators across the sector are likely watching closely, because the regulator’s rationale suggests that both technical reporting performance and responsiveness to regulatory requests will remain central to any future decision on registration status.
This article was originally published as Australia Orders Cryptolink Bitcoin ATMs Offline After Reporting Lapses on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A Bitcoin security researcher says he lost access to an OpenAI capability used in his ongoing vulnerability reviews, forcing him to shift back to open-source Chinese AI models. The move underscores a broader concern within parts of the crypto security community: that the most advanced AI systems may be difficult for “defenders” to use, even when the intent is to reduce risk.
In a post on X Tuesday, AnchorWatch CEO Rob Hamilton said he began integrating OpenAI’s Trust & Cyber capabilities into his Bitcoin Red Team effort on Saturday, only to find his access restricted the next morning. “It absolutely guts me as a patriotic American to have to do this,” Hamilton wrote, adding that he would return to using Chinese open-source models to continue protecting Bitcoin infrastructure.
Key takeaways
Rob Hamilton says access to OpenAI’s Trust & Cyber was restricted shortly after he began integrating it into Bitcoin Red Team work.
Hamilton frames the change as a defensive tradeoff: open AI models are accessible, while certain frontier tools may be harder for defenders to retain.
Bitcoin Red Team conducts vulnerability scanning across hundreds of open-source Bitcoin-related repositories using a mix of AI assistance and human review.
Recent hacks in the hardware wallet space have increased pressure on teams trying to detect issues earlier in the development lifecycle.
How Bitcoin Red Team is using AI to find vulnerabilities
Bitcoin Red Team is a volunteer effort that scans a large set of open-source Bitcoin-related repositories for potential vulnerabilities. According to Hamilton’s account, the work relies on AI tools combined with human verification, with the goal of identifying weaknesses that may otherwise go unnoticed or be discovered only after exploitation.
The group’s efforts have reportedly intensified following a widely discussed incident involving a Coldcard hardware wallet hack, which earlier reporting described as resulting in more than $100 million in stolen Bitcoin. While Hamilton’s post does not quantify how the OpenAI access affected the rate or quality of findings, it does connect the research workflow to a broader urgency—namely, that attackers are actively searching for flaws in the systems people rely on to keep funds secure.
What Hamilton says changed after integrating OpenAI Trust & Cyber
Hamilton’s explanation is straightforward: he started using OpenAI’s Trust & Cyber capabilities to support his team’s review process, then lost the ability to continue the investigation that same week. He said he was “prevented from being able to continue the investigation in a further effort to make sure their code changes are sufficient” and also to determine whether other issues remained undiscovered.
In a follow-up argument about the incentive structure for AI access, Hamilton suggested there is a “local minima in policy,” implying that rules governing the availability of intelligence-focused AI capabilities may unintentionally narrow who can use them for defensive purposes. He added that while “black hats” would not hit these issues, “white hats” could be left on the sidelines if the tooling is restricted.
Hamilton’s characterization is notable because it positions the problem less as a technical limitation of AI and more as an access and policy constraint affecting security research workflows. For investors, users, and builders, the practical concern is that fewer defender teams may be able to run high-end analysis at scale—at the exact moment when vulnerabilities across crypto infrastructure need faster detection.
Broader friction over “frontier” AI access in crypto security
This complaint fits into a pattern that has already been raised by crypto executives. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that many of crypto’s largest players were “still waiting to gain access” to powerful new AI models to strengthen their code from attacks, with only a limited number able to obtain it. In that context, Hamilton’s experience appears as a micro-level example of how access can be uneven—even for teams working on vulnerability discovery rather than exploitation.
The tension is that crypto ecosystems can’t rely solely on open-source tooling if the industry’s risk profile increasingly demands rapid review of complex codebases. Yet, if leading AI providers constrain usage in ways that make defensive experimentation difficult to sustain, security efforts may end up dependent on a patchwork of what is available rather than what is best suited for the task.
Why the shift back to open-source models matters
Hamilton said he would return to Chinese open-source models after the access restriction. That change is significant for two reasons.
Continuity: If defender access to frontier systems is inconsistent, researchers may need fallback approaches they can run without interruptions. Open-source models can be deployed and iterated on without waiting for new permissions.
Coverage and speed: Teams scanning “hundreds” of repositories depend on automated support to review large volumes. If access to an advanced tool is removed midstream, the research cadence and scope can be affected unless an alternative system fills the gap quickly.
At the same time, Hamilton’s stance does not necessarily imply that open-source models are always inferior. Instead, his argument is that defensive research is being forced to operate within the boundaries of whatever AI is available—while attackers face fewer barriers to pursuing harmful goals. That framing raises a question for the community: how can security research leverage advanced AI while still operating under restrictions intended to prevent misuse?
For readers tracking crypto risk, this story is less about who “has” cutting-edge AI at any given moment and more about whether defender capability can be maintained over time. The next inflection point will be whether access policies are clarified, expanded, or made more predictable for security-focused use cases—especially as vulnerabilities continue to be discovered across wallets and other critical infrastructure.
Hamilton’s update leaves one key uncertainty: what specifically triggered the restriction and whether it was temporary or permanent. What readers should watch next is whether other security teams report similar access changes, and how quickly research workflows adapt without losing the ability to uncover vulnerabilities before they reach production.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Red Team Founder Joins Chinese AI Project, Cites Impact on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Quantum computing is often discussed in crypto as a future doomsday scenario—sometimes framed around the idea that Satoshi Nakamoto’s dormant Bitcoin could be drained once “Q-day” arrives. But Quantus Network CEO and co-founder Christopher Smith argues the first real-world impact may look far less cinematic: not a public, forensic-friendly hack, but a series of wallet breaches that are difficult to attribute to quantum capabilities at all.
Smith tells Cointelegraph that once quantum computers become powerful enough to break the public-key cryptography used by major blockchains, attackers may be able to derive private keys from public information on-chain. Crucially, the compromised pathway could avoid triggering obvious internal security failures in wallets or exchanges, leaving investigators with scant evidence beyond the fact that no meaningful breach was detected.
Key takeaways
Q-day attacks may be hard to detect because they can be executed without compromising a wallet, device, or exchange infrastructure.
Rather than only “Satoshi’s Bitcoin,” early quantum-enabled targets could include high-value administrative keys and other sensitive systems.
Security researchers believe attackers might prioritize hot wallets at exchanges because they are less likely to raise alarms quickly.
Predictions for when quantum can break modern elliptic-curve cryptography range from late-2020s odds to near-certainty in the early 2030s.
Blockchain teams are already migrating toward post-quantum signatures, largely because waiting for certainty is too risky.
Why quantum theft could be indistinguishable from “normal” breaches
Smith’s central warning is that quantum-enabled compromise may not resemble the kind of intrusion that generates clear forensic trails. “When someone cracks your key, you don’t get a memo saying how they did it,” he said in an interview with Cointelegraph. In this scenario, an attacker could compute the corresponding private key after enough quantum capability exists—using information already visible on a public blockchain.
That shift in attack mechanics matters for incident response. Smith suggests that if a highly secure organization were targeted, “the only forensic evidence would be that there was no breach.” The attacker wouldn’t need to exploit the systems in which the wallet is running, nor necessarily leave traces of compromise in logs that would point to a conventional intrusion path.
Security expectations are therefore likely to be mismatched with how the earliest quantum-driven thefts would appear. If investigators primarily look for device-level compromise, key-management failures, or exchange-side intrusions, they could be left without the traditional indicators that typically accompany catastrophic key loss.
The first targets may be more strategic than famous
Much of the public concern about Q-day focuses on Satoshi Nakamoto’s estimated holdings—described in the source reporting as worth roughly $63 billion at the time of writing. Smith argues that while that narrative dominates headlines, the first quantum-enabled targets could be elsewhere.
According to Smith, the earliest high-value targets might include military systems and state secrets. In the crypto ecosystem specifically, he points to the “single most valuable key,” suggesting it could be Tether’s minting key. In his framing, a quantum attacker could mint tokens from an administrative wallet and sell them before the issuer can react.
He also notes that USDT is deployed across multiple networks, and that some of those networks are already working on post-quantum migration. That detail underscores an important practical point: even where a stablecoin is widely used, the risk is not only about user wallets. Administrative or minting keys—or other privileged cryptographic roles—could be where quantum leverage becomes most economically damaging.
Another idea comes from Blockchain Capital security researcher Sean Cheetham. He argues an attacker would more likely pursue hot wallets at exchanges—particularly those “that aren’t going to ring alarm bells”—rather than trying to take famously held coins. Cheetham’s comment suggests attackers may optimize for timing and operational friction: quantum capability might not eliminate the value of choosing targets, it may just change how compromise is achieved.
Smith adds a further wrinkle: attackers could disguise quantum thefts by using plausible, deniable explanations. “There’s an alternative scenario where they… have these plausible, deniable [explanations]: ‘Oh, somebody just lost their keys somehow,’” he said. That increases the chance that quantum-related incidents could be misclassified as ordinary loss or conventional compromise.
Q-day timing remains uncertain as AI reshapes assumptions
Part of what makes Q-day hard to plan around is that forecasts have been moving as quantum progress and related algorithmic improvements develop. In March, Cointelegraph previously reported that Google accelerated its post-quantum migration timeline to 2029, citing an AI-assisted breakthrough suggesting elliptic curve cryptography could be cracked with fewer physical qubits than earlier estimates.
In the current reporting, NGRAVE CEO Roy Blackstone is cited for criticizing earlier quantum threat models that, in his view, did not adequately account for the parallel development of AI. The excerpt attributed to him argues that many threat models assumed ample time before public-key cryptography could be broken, but failed to reflect how quickly AI could evolve alongside quantum research.
Despite this urgency, there is still no single consensus on when quantum computers will be capable of breaking modern cryptography. Smith, whose company is building a blockchain network intended to be quantum-resistant from launch, says there is a “50-50” chance Q-day could arrive by 2028, arguing that continued AI-assisted improvements in quantum algorithms and ongoing hardware research make forecasts less reliable.
Cheetham’s view, as presented in the source, is that the early 2030s are “definitely almost a certainty,” while earlier dates are “more of a trailing probability.” Michael Coates, the Solana Foundation’s chief information security officer, declined to estimate during an earlier interview, telling Cointelegraph that “there’s no way to know.” He also pointed to a long-standing industry pattern: “it is always five years away,” a perspective he says has persisted for a decade or more.
Even with widely varying predictions, the recurring theme across these experts is that uncertainty should not become a reason to delay. Blackstone in the source emphasizes that blockchains have begun migrating to post-quantum signatures because “the damage would be catastrophic if they didn’t.”
What post-quantum migration changes for crypto security
The practical implication of these warnings is straightforward: migrating cryptography is the only way to reduce exposure as quantum timelines shift. While Q-day may be difficult to pinpoint, the risk model changes in a way that makes “wait and see” a poor strategy—especially because early quantum-enabled attacks could be indistinguishable from other security failures.
Post-quantum signature migration, as referenced in the reporting, is therefore not just about long-term research alignment. It changes what defenders can expect in real incidents. If a chain adopts post-quantum signatures, it narrows the window during which attackers might exploit public-key weaknesses through quantum computation. That also reduces the chance that a theft will be misattributed to a conventional breach.
It may also influence how exchanges and institutional custody providers prioritize key management and operational security. If an attacker can derive private keys without “breaching” systems in the usual way, then the strongest defense becomes cryptographic resilience rather than solely perimeter and device hardening.
The open question readers should watch next is how quickly major ecosystems complete post-quantum signature transitions, and whether their migration schedules account for the increasingly AI-influenced pace of quantum-related research. If the earliest quantum compromises can look ordinary, the timing of migration—and how consistently it’s implemented across networks and administrative key roles—may matter as much as any single “Q-day” date.
This article was originally published as Quantus Founder Warns Crypto’s First Quantum Attack Could Mimic Breach on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin’s long-running debate over “anti-spam” changes took another sharp turn this week as support for the BIP-110 soft fork proposal failed to clear the threshold needed to move forward. After a contentious process, the branch effectively stalled within hours—an outcome observers had largely expected given the economic realities of running parallel mining on a minority chain.
Meanwhile, U.S. lawmakers again pushed the timing of the CLARITY Act vote, and the market digested fresh signals across regulation, custody security, and institutional demand. Separately, Ethereum researchers advanced a proposal to curb staking rewards as more ETH is locked, while critics warned it could undermine incentives for validators and the broader ecosystem.
Key takeaways
BIP-110’s anti-spam approach failed to attract enough miner signaling support and quickly stalled on a minority chain.
U.S. Senate procedural steps for the CLARITY Act have been scheduled for September rather than being forced through before the August recess.
Bitcoin’s hardware wallet security concerns have spurred new AI-assisted vulnerability scanning efforts by a volunteer “red team.”
Ethereum’s proposed EIP-8363 would taper validator rewards more aggressively as staking participation rises, drawing strong pushback from parts of the DeFi sector.
Spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded their strongest weekly inflows in roughly four months, underscoring renewed institutional appetite.
Bitcoin’s BIP-110 anti-spam branch stalls
Supporters of BIP-110, a proposed soft fork designed to reduce “non financial transactions” on Bitcoin—explicitly targeting activity associated with Ordinals—had hoped the change could move from debate to implementation. However, after a lengthy and heated discussion, the proposal was declared effectively “dead on arrival” following weak uptake by miners.
According to reporting from Cointelegraph, BIP-110 secured only about 2.5% support ahead of entering mandatory signaling on Saturday. As a result, it forked into a minority chain that produced just two blocks over an eight-hour period before stalling.
From an economic standpoint, critics argued the same constraints that apply to mining a parallel chain would remain: difficulty is unlikely to meaningfully improve, yet miners would still bear the cost of operating on the new branch. The difficulty adjustment mechanism requires successfully mining additional full difficulty periods (another 2,014 blocks) to change the economics—something the minority branch failed to achieve.
The governance and “neutrality” fight continues
The technical collapse of the branch does not end the broader argument over what Bitcoin should optimize for. Opponents framed BIP-110 as censorship by design—an approach that they argued conflicts with the network’s established norms around neutrality and consensus. The proposal also drew objections from prominent Bitcoin advocates.
Cointelegraph previously noted that Strategy executive chairman Michael Saylor said he understood the goal of reducing spam-like activity, but argued the method could threaten Bitcoin’s neutrality and the underlying consensus rules. Blockstream CEO Adam Back similarly warned that a consensus-level change could damage Bitcoin’s credibility and introduce risks such as making certain unspent transaction outputs unspendable.
There were also institutional ripples within the Bitcoin ecosystem. After the debate, a Bitcoin Core developer proposed removing BIP-110 backer Luke Dashjr from his role as a BIP Editor, underscoring how politically charged the “anti-spam” question has become inside governance-adjacent circles.
CLARITY Act momentum stalls until September
In the U.S. policy arena, the path toward the CLARITY Act has again shifted. Senator Tim Scott, chair of the Senate Banking Committee, said a procedural vote on the bill should occur before the August recess “without any question,” according to Cointelegraph’s reporting. Senator Cynthia Lummis also suggested there could be a last-minute push.
However, Senate Majority Leader John Thune declined to force immediate action and scheduled the cloture vote for September 15, delaying any realistic chance of passage before senators leave for the August break. Thune told Cointelegraph he “worked with sponsors of the bill,” praised Lummis’s role, and indicated the bill would be queued when lawmakers returned.
For stakeholders trying to influence the final shape of the legislation, the near-term window narrows to what can be negotiated before the cloture vote—particularly around ethics rules, stablecoin yield issues, and protections for developers mentioned in the reported coverage.
Bitcoiners escalate AI-assisted security review
Security concerns have remained a central theme for Bitcoin users, especially after prominent hardware wallet incidents. Cointelegraph reports that a volunteer Bitcoin security initiative called “Bitcoin Red Team” began an AI-assisted review of open-source Bitcoin-related repositories and quickly expanded its findings.
The group—composed of 16 volunteers—initially identified nearly 5,000 potential issues during a rapid scan mid-week. By the weekend, the number reportedly grew to 7,958 issues, including 168 critical flaws and 1,120 high-severity items.
According to Cointelegraph, the initiative includes Rob Hamilton, CEO of AnchorWatch and a Bitcoin developer known as Calle. The team used AI tools alongside human review to search for vulnerabilities, aiming to reduce the risk that weaknesses go unnoticed in widely used codebases.
Cointelegraph also tied the effort’s urgency to earlier wallet compromise claims. Developer Coinkite suggested that the Coldcard hardware wallet hacks were related to AI analysis of its source code. The article reiterates that more than $100 million was stolen by 7,300 wallets due to flaws linked to randomness used for seed phrase generation, framing the incident as a major breach that eroded confidence across cold storage practices.
In response to that trust shock, many Bitcoiners reportedly re-evaluated how they generate self-custody seed phrases. Cointelegraph notes a trend toward manual methods such as dice-based seed generation—an attempt to reduce reliance on any single entropy source.
Ethereum proposal to taper staking rewards meets strong resistance
On Ethereum, a separate but equally ecosystem-sensitive debate is unfolding around issuance and validator incentives. Cointelegraph reports that Ethereum researchers and developers proposed changes under an initiative called Tapered Issuance Burn, also known as EIP-8363.
As described in the coverage, the proposal would adjust issuance so that validator rewards decline more sharply as the percentage of staked ETH increases. Specifically, it would cut rewards entirely once the share of supply staked passes the 50% threshold. Current staking participation is cited as about 34%, with a queue of validators waiting to enter.
Supporters argue the approach could help prevent staking from becoming overly concentrated and that it aligns network incentives with usage of proof-of-stake security. But critics—especially in DeFi—fear the change could backfire by making staking less attractive as more ETH moves onto the beacon chain, potentially snowballing into reduced security benefits.
Cointelegraph also highlights backlash from parts of the ecosystem. Ether.fi founder Mike Silagadze said Ether.fi could exit staking entirely if the proposal passes, arguing it would be harmful to decentralization, Ethereum adoption, and the network’s credibility.
Bitcoin ETFs post strongest week in four months
While Bitcoin’s protocol-level governance fights continued, institutional positioning offered a more optimistic signal. Cointelegraph reports that spot Bitcoin ETFs posted their third-strongest showing since October, reflecting renewed momentum in institutional demand.
According to the article’s cited data from SoSoValue, ETFs recorded $853.54 million in inflows—five times the net amount seen across all of July—and the week was described as the best since April. Ether ETFs reportedly added another $243.7 million.
Some market participants tied the improved ETF flow picture to the ongoing hardware wallet scrutiny sparked by the Coldcard incident. Cointelegraph cites Bloomberg ETF analyst Eric Balchunas as suggesting an institutional custody connection, and also includes a direct statement attributed to Binance co-founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao: that storing coins on exchanges is “statistically safer” than self custody.
What to watch next
BIP-110 is unlikely to return to the spotlight in the near term given its stalled minority-branch reality, but the underlying disagreement about transaction neutrality on Bitcoin remains unresolved. In the U.S., the September cloture date for CLARITY sets the next measurable checkpoint, while Ethereum’s EIP-8363 debate will hinge on whether critics can persuade stakeholders that staking incentives can be maintained without eroding DeFi participation and validator economics.
This article was originally published as BIP-110 Fails to Advance as CLARITY Vote Is Deferred on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin’s contentious BIP-110 upgrade track is showing tangible friction in the form of a widening chain split. According to the BIP-110 monitor, the enforcing (BIP-110 validating) branch has stalled at block 961,633 after producing only two blocks, while the non-enforcing branch has advanced to block 961,721—pushing the gap to 88 blocks.
As the disagreement persists through the period where difficulty adjustments cannot yet fully catch up, the episode is again highlighting how “mandatory signaling” mechanics can turn a soft-proposal into an operational contest between node policies and mining output.
Key takeaways
The enforcing BIP-110 branch halted at block 961,633, while the non-enforcing chain reached 961,721, widening divergence to 88 blocks.
BIP-110 nodes reject blocks that do not signal via version bit 4, while ordinary Bitcoin nodes accept both signaling and non-signaling blocks—enabling two simultaneous histories.
Mandatory signaling began at block 961,632, following a signaling rate of only 2.53% (51 out of 2,016 blocks) in the prior window.
Ocean records attribute the enforcing branch’s first two blocks to a pseudonymous mining group named Roughnecks using Ocean’s DATUM mining protocol.
Mandatory signaling is scheduled to continue through block 963,647, and enforcing nodes must mine through the remainder of the 2,016-block adjustment period before difficulty can respond.
A split driven by node policy and signaling
The divergence started right as BIP-110 moved into mandatory signaling. The BIP-110 monitor reported the latest state as of 10:19 am UTC, showing the enforcing branch’s last block at 961,633—about 12 hours after the branch produced its two-block output.
In the window immediately before mandatory signaling, only 51 of the previous 2,016 blocks signaled support for BIP-110. The 2.53% figure matters because it reflects how limited the share of blocks was that complied with the signaling requirement before the stricter rule took effect.
Under the BIP-110 mechanism, nodes enforcing the proposal reject blocks that do not signal the required version bit (version bit 4). By contrast, standard Bitcoin nodes do not apply the same rejection rule and therefore accept both signaling and non-signaling blocks. That asymmetry is what allows two competing chains to progress independently when miners do not consistently produce blocks meeting the enforcing criteria.
What changed at block 961,632
Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that BIP-110 crossed key thresholds as “spam wars” around transaction-level policy heated up. Building on that context, the current episode is now anchored to a precise transition: BIP-110 entered mandatory signaling at block 961,632 on Saturday.
The proposal’s terms, including the way mandatory signaling is enforced, run through block 963,647, according to the BIP-110 documentation. This implies that miners and enforcing nodes remain in a regime where the enforcing branch can only be strengthened if sufficiently more blocks comply with the signaling requirement.
Importantly for traders and operators tracking chain health, progress is not instantaneous. The enforcing branch must continue mining through the remainder of the 2,016-block difficulty adjustment period before difficulty can adjust, making it harder for a smaller enforcing cohort to “catch up” quickly without a material increase in hashpower.
Mining attribution points to a small cohort
Ocean’s records on the relevant block history provide additional detail on who produced the early enforcing blocks. Ocean data associated the enforcing branch’s first two blocks with a pseudonymous mining group called Roughnecks.
Those blocks were reportedly mined using Ocean’s Decentralized Alternative Templates for Universal Mining (DATUM) mining protocol, as reflected in Ocean’s block information for the cited enforcing-branch block. The fact that only a limited number of enforcing-compliant blocks appeared before the stalling suggests—without proving intent—that the set of miners producing compliant blocks has been comparatively small.
That matters operationally: if compliance is concentrated among a niche subgroup rather than broadly distributed across the mining ecosystem, the enforcing branch can lag for long stretches—exactly what the current 88-block gap illustrates.
Why critics argue the rules risk unintended consequences
The BIP-110 controversy has long centered on whether forcing consensus-level behavior around signaling and block acceptance is worth the potential benefits. Prominent Bitcoin figures have criticized the change as potentially undermining neutrality and creating avoidable risks.
Strategy executive chairman Michael Saylor told Cointelegraph that while he supports the proposal’s objectives, he argued its approach threatened Bitcoin’s “neutral rules” and consensus. Separately, Blockstream CEO Adam Back warned, also via Cointelegraph coverage, that a consensus-level change could damage Bitcoin’s credibility and potentially make certain unspent transaction outputs unspendable.
While today’s split is not a verdict on the broader debate, it does underscore how quickly policy-based enforcement can translate into practical chain divergence when signaling support is thin and hashpower distribution doesn’t align with the enforcing conditions.
For readers watching this closely, the question is less whether the debate exists—critics and supporters are both on the record—but how sustained the operational divergence becomes once mandatory signaling remains in place through block 963,647.
What to monitor next
Until the enforcing branch reaches a point where difficulty can adjust—or until miners meaningfully increase the share of compliant signaling—watch for whether the enforcing chain resumes producing blocks at a higher rate and whether the block gap continues to widen or begins to narrow before block 963,647.
This article was originally published as BIP-110 Enforcement Stalls: Two Blocks Mined as Miner Support Lags on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin’s BIP-110-enforcing branch has stalled after mining just two blocks, widening the separation from the non-enforcing chain to 88 blocks. The latest update from a BIP-110 monitoring dashboard shows the mandatory-signaling version of the network making extremely slow progress as it awaits further blocks to complete the current difficulty-adjustment window.
According to the BIP-110 monitor (updated at 10:19 am UTC), the enforcing branch was last seen at block 961,633 after a long gap since its previous block. In the meantime, the non-enforcing chain advanced to block 961,721, underscoring how thin the enforcement-side hashpower currently is.
Key takeaways
The enforcing branch produced only two blocks before stalling, while the non-enforcing chain continued forward, increasing the block-gap to 88.
The divergence began after BIP-110 entered mandatory signaling at block 961,632, during which only 2.53% of blocks in the preceding window signaled support.
Mandatory signaling is scheduled to continue through block 963,647, but difficulty adjustment won’t fully help until the enforcing side mines through the remainder of the 2,016-block adjustment period.
Mining activity on the enforcing branch’s early blocks was attributed, via Ocean records, to a pseudonymous group using Ocean’s DATUM mining protocol.
Where the chains split
The split traces back to the moment BIP-110 moved into mandatory signaling mode. Earlier on Saturday, BIP-110 entered mandatory signaling at block 961,632. During the preceding 2,016-block adjustment window, only 51 blocks—about 2.53%—signaled support.
This matters because, under the BIP-110 rules, enforcing nodes reject blocks that do not signal via version bit 4, while standard Bitcoin nodes continue to accept both signaling and non-signaling blocks. The result is that the enforcing branch can lag if insufficient miners actively produce signaling blocks during the mandatory phase.
Under the proposal documented in the BIPs repository for BIP-110, mandatory signaling continues through block 963,647. Enforcing nodes must mine through the rest of the 2,016-block adjustment period before difficulty can adjust on their branch—an environment where even a temporary shortage of supporting hashpower can create long delays.
Stalled progress and the role of adjustment windows
Even when enforcement rules are live, the network’s practical pace can remain constrained by the mechanics of Bitcoin’s difficulty targeting. The BIP-110-enforcing side can’t benefit from a difficulty change until it has advanced far enough within the current adjustment period.
Ocean’s records cited in the BIP-110 monitor coverage indicate that a pseudonymous mining group—Roughnecks—produced the first two enforcing-branch blocks using Ocean’s Decentralized Alternative Templates for Universal Mining (DATUM) mining protocol. Those two blocks appear to be the basis for the enforcing-side head seen at block 961,633, after which progress slowed materially.
With the non-enforcing chain reaching block 961,721, the distance between the two heads has grown quickly once the enforcing branch stopped producing frequent blocks. For miners and observers, this is a concrete reminder that “mandatory signaling” does not automatically translate into immediate, sustained block production on the enforcing side—especially if the number of miners willing to follow version bit 4 during the mandatory phase is limited.
What BIP-110 requires—and why critics warn
BIP-110’s stated mechanism is straightforward: enforce nodes require blocks to signal through a specified version bit, while ordinary Bitcoin nodes tolerate both signaling and non-signaling blocks. That design is intended to curb unwanted data patterns described in the broader debate around spam and template behavior.
Still, the approach has drawn notable resistance from influential figures in the Bitcoin ecosystem. Cointelegraph previously reported that Strategy executive chairman Michael Saylor supports the general objectives but argued the proposal’s method threatens Bitcoin’s “neutral rules” and consensus integrity. Separately, Blockstream CEO Adam Back has warned that the consensus-level change could damage Bitcoin’s credibility and may make certain unspent transaction outputs unspendable, according to earlier Cointelegraph coverage.
The stalled enforcing branch provides a live illustration of how contentious or under-resourced changes can become when they rely on adoption by a critical mass of miners. If enforcement is accepted by fewer miners than required to keep block production competitive, the chain running enforcement rules can fall behind—even if the rules themselves are technically activated.
What to watch next
For now, readers tracking BIP-110 should focus on whether additional miners begin signaling in larger numbers as the mandatory window continues through block 963,647, and whether the enforcing branch’s block production improves before the next difficulty adjustment opportunity. If the hashpower supporting version bit 4 remains limited, the enforcing chain may continue to lag—turning a theoretical protocol enforcement into a practical question of miner participation.
This article was originally published as BIP-110 Branch Hesitates: Two-Block Stall Widens Bitcoin Gap on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Brazil’s central bank is introducing a new anti-fraud rule for cryptocurrency transfers, requiring regulated virtual asset service providers (VASPs) to temporarily “hold” certain outbound payments. The measure is designed to slow down potentially fraudulent flows that take advantage of cross-border speed and the complexities of self-custody transfers.
According to a statement from the Banco Central do Brasil (BCB), the rules will apply to funds received above $10,000—either in a single transaction or based on a customer’s total transactions over a day—when those funds are sent to foreign platforms or to customers’ self-custody wallets. The precautionary hold can last up to 24 hours, and providers will also need to hold other transfers that require additional review under their risk-management systems.
Key takeaways
Brazil’s central bank (BCB) will require up to 24-hour precautionary holds on certain VASP transfers tied to fraud prevention.
The rule targets transfers involving funds received above $10,000, measured by single transactions or daily aggregates.
Holds must also cover other transfers flagged for extra scrutiny under a provider’s existing risk policies.
The requirement takes effect Jan. 1, 2027, with VASPs required to disclose holds to customers and keep detailed records.
24-hour holds for high-value cross-border and self-custody transfers
The BCB says the framework applies when VASPs receive funds over the $10,000 threshold and then transfer them to either overseas providers or wallets held directly by customers. The central bank’s approach is effectively threshold-based: it covers not only one-off large transactions but also cases where multiple smaller moves add up to more than $10,000 in a day for the same customer.
Beyond the headline threshold, the rules also extend to “other transfers requiring further scrutiny” according to each provider’s risk-management policies. That language matters because it gives regulators flexibility to capture additional suspicious patterns even when transfers fall below the $10,000 number, as long as the provider’s compliance framework would normally treat them as higher risk.
When VASPs can release transfers early
A key operational detail is that the hold is not necessarily an automatic full 24-hour delay in every case. The BCB’s statement indicates that a VASP can complete its assessment and release a transfer before the 24 hours expire, as long as it follows parameters set out by the central bank.
Separately, VASPs will be expected to notify customers that a hold has been applied and to document relevant compliance activity. The BCB also requires providers to keep records related to fraud incidents, attempted fraud, and the corrective actions they take. For traders and users, the practical implication is that transfers to foreign platforms or self-custody wallets may become more variable in settlement timing—especially around higher-value or risk-flagged transactions—even if a provider ultimately clears the transfer quickly.
Brazil’s shift reflects a broader anti-scam push
Brazil’s central bank move comes as regulators globally respond to crypto scams that are enabled by fast settlement and the borderless nature of digital assets. The BCB’s approach mirrors a growing trend: slowing down or gating withdrawals and outbound transfers long enough to detect fraud patterns.
Earlier this year, Japan’s Financial Services Agency and National Police Agency asked crypto exchanges to restrict withdrawals in certain circumstances after users deposit fiat currency or buy digital assets. The Japanese authorities outlined expectations that exchanges require customers to pre-register withdrawal addresses, impose a waiting period for newly added addresses, and adopt additional measures such as customer-specific withdrawal limits and stronger monitoring. They also pointed to security practices including phishing-resistant multifactor authentication and checks to ensure the name of a bank remitter matches the account holder of the crypto transaction.
However, the Japan steps are not binding, and exchanges retain flexibility over how they implement restrictions based on their operations and exposure to misuse. Brazil’s plan, by contrast, is framed as an explicit central-bank requirement with a clear effective date and compliance obligations.
What to watch as the rules approach 2027
With the BCB rules scheduled to begin on Jan. 1, 2027, VASPs operating in Brazil will need to ensure their transfer monitoring systems can reliably identify the threshold conditions—particularly the “single transaction or daily total” logic tied to inbound funds above $10,000. They also need workflows for customer notification and for maintaining compliance records on fraud-related events and responses.
For users, the biggest day-to-day impact is likely to be around transfer timing and the need for clarity from providers when outbound moves are paused for review. For investors and market participants, these kinds of rules can affect how quickly capital moves through on-ramps, custody, and exchanges—potentially changing risk pricing, liquidity expectations, and the practical usability of cross-border or self-custody transfers during periods of heightened scam activity.
The next question for Brazil’s crypto market is how strongly providers will apply holds under the broader “risk-management” portion of the framework, and whether central bank guidance will specify further operational parameters that determine when transfers can be released early. Those details will likely shape how disruptive compliance becomes in practice—and how effectively it deters fraud without unduly burdening legitimate users.
This article was originally published as Brazil’s new crypto rules impose up to 24-hour transfer holds for fraud checks on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Brazil’s central bank has approved new rules that require virtual asset service providers (VASPs) to temporarily freeze certain crypto transfers before sending funds to foreign platforms or self-custody wallets. The precautionary hold is designed to give firms time to review suspected fraud and suspected illicit behavior.
According to a note published by the Banco Central do Brasil (BCB) on Friday, the requirement takes effect on Jan. 1, 2027 and will apply to transfers where the amount received by a customer exceeds $10,000, either as a single transaction or based on the customer’s total activity in a day. In addition to that threshold, VASPs must also place holds on other transfers flagged for enhanced scrutiny under their risk-management systems.
Key takeaways
Brazil’s BCB will require VASPs to implement precautionary holds of up to 24 hours on certain outbound virtual asset transfers.
The initial trigger is $10,000 in value received, measured per transaction or aggregated across daily customer activity.
Holds also cover transfers marked for review under a provider’s existing risk-management policies.
VASPs must inform customers about holds and maintain records of fraud incidents and remediation steps.
Japan’s earlier anti-scam measures exist, but they are non-binding—a key difference from Brazil’s approach.
How the 24-hour hold will work
Under the BCB’s framework, VASPs must apply precautionary holds to certain transfers once the underlying conditions are met. The central bank’s statement specifies that the rules cover funds received above $10,000, either in a single transaction or through the accumulation of transactions over the course of a day.
The BCB also requires providers to place holds on additional transfers that need further evaluation under their own risk policies. In other words, the $10,000 threshold is not the only gate: the central bank expects VASPs to treat certain flagged activity more cautiously, even if the threshold is not the only factor.
Providers will be allowed to complete their assessment and release a transfer before the 24-hour window ends, as long as they follow parameters set out by the BCB. That gives firms flexibility in cases where they can quickly clear the transfer after review.
Operational duties for VASPs
The BCB’s note makes clear that the hold mechanism comes with compliance obligations. VASPs must:
Notify customers when a transfer is subject to a hold.
Keep records of fraud incidents, attempted fraud, and the corrective actions taken in response.
These requirements matter for users and firms alike because they effectively formalize what providers must do when suspicious cross-border activity is detected. For traders and businesses relying on fast settlement, the policy introduces a potential delay on outbound transfers routed to foreign venues or self-custody addresses when the relevant conditions apply.
Why this is being tightened now
The central bank’s move reflects a broader shift among regulators as they confront scams that leverage the speed and global reach of digital assets. Crypto transfers can settle quickly across borders, which can help legitimate users—but it also creates opportunities for criminals to move funds before counterparties can intervene.
Brazil’s rules are part of a larger international pattern where regulators seek to slow down or add friction at key stages of the transfer process, particularly when money is leaving regulated custody environments for higher-risk destinations such as self-custody wallets.
That context is especially important for investors and service providers: while blockchain activity is transparent, reversing losses is often difficult. Measures like precautionary holds aim to reduce the chance that funds are sent to the wrong addresses in the first place.
Comparisons: Japan’s withdrawal delays and Europe’s scam warnings
Brazil’s action follows similar anti-scam developments elsewhere. In Japan, the Financial Services Agency and the National Police Agency asked crypto exchanges to restrict withdrawals after customers deposit fiat or buy digital assets. As reported earlier by Cointelegraph, Japanese authorities urged exchanges to implement controls such as requiring customers to preregister withdrawal addresses and applying a waiting period before newly added addresses can be used.
Other safeguards discussed in Japan include customer-specific withdrawal limits, stronger monitoring, phishing-resistant multifactor authentication, and checks intended to confirm that a bank remitter’s name matches the crypto account holder.
However, the Japanese measures are not binding. Exchanges can decide how to implement protections based on their own operations and exposure to misuse, which stands in contrast to Brazil’s regulatory timing and threshold-based structure.
In Europe, regulators have also highlighted risks tied to impersonation and fraud. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted warnings about criminals impersonating watchdogs and crypto firms, including instances involving fake websites and the misuse of identity and logos in falsified documents. While those reports focus more on deception surrounding licensed providers, they point to the same underlying issue: scammers adapt quickly to user demand, especially when people are looking for regulated access points.
What to watch next
With Brazil’s hold rules scheduled to begin on Jan. 1, 2027, VASPs will likely adjust transfer flows, customer communications, and fraud-review processes well before the effective date. Users sending large transfers to foreign services or self-custody wallets should watch how providers interpret the $10,000 trigger and what criteria they use to classify additional transfers as “requiring further scrutiny.”
This article was originally published as Brazil Weighs 24-Hour Crypto Transfer Hold to Curb Fraud on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

BTCPay Server has taken a defensive step for Bitcoin Lightning users, temporarily blocking public remote connections to Lightning Network nodes running LND after attackers reportedly exploited a critical vulnerability to steal credentials and move funds.
The project said Lightning payments can still be processed, but external wallets—such as Zeus—will be unable to connect via a BTCPay Server domain or a Tor onion address in Docker-based deployments until BTCPay decides it is safe to re-enable that remote access pathway.
Key takeaways
BTCPay Server has temporarily restricted public remote access to LND nodes in Docker deployments to reduce the chance of further credential misuse.
Version 2.4.2 installs LND 0.21.1 and automatically regenerates Lightning “macaroon” credentials for standard BTCPay installations.
Operators are urged to look for signs of compromise, including unauthorized payments, unexpected channel closures, unfamiliar peers, and mismatches between onchain/Lightning balances.
Deployments that expose LND through routes outside BTCPay—such as a user-managed reverse proxy, Tor service, or forwarded ports—must rotate credentials separately.
Why BTCPay is limiting remote access
In a statement shared by BTCPay Server on X, the team said the restriction is designed to prevent external wallets from reaching affected Lightning nodes through BTCPay’s publicly exposed endpoints. The immediate concern is not the Lightning protocol itself, but how remote access can be abused when attackers gain control over the credentials that authorize actions on an LND node.
BTCPay emphasized that the change is intended to be temporary. It also indicated its plan is to bring remote access back once it determines it is safe—an important operational detail for service providers that rely on broad wallet connectivity for day-to-day payments.
What version 2.4.2 changes in LND authentication
BTCPay’s fix centers on credential rotation. According to the project’s security guidance, attackers were able to obtain “macaroon” credential files without proper authentication. Macaroons are the authorization artifacts LND uses to control access to node capabilities. If an attacker acquires them, the potential outcome is full take-over of the LND node and the ability to move funds.
BTCPay said version 2.4.2 addresses the issue by installing LND version 0.21.1 and automatically regenerating macaroon credentials on standard BTCPay setups. For operators, this is significant because it reduces the likelihood of lingering compromised credentials after an update—though it does not eliminate the need for active incident checks.
The project advised operators to verify whether compromise attempts occurred by reviewing several common indicators: unauthorized payments, unexpected channel closures, unfamiliar peers, and discrepancies between their records and either onchain or Lightning balances.
Actions operators must take beyond updating BTCPay
BTCPay’s instructions also draw an important line between what the software controls and what an operator configures. The team stated that installing the update does not automatically close access routes managed independently by the operator. If an LND node is exposed through other paths—such as a reverse proxy configured by the operator, a Tor service not run through BTCPay, or a forwarded port—then credential rotation may need to happen separately.
That distinction matters because it changes the practical remediation workflow. Updating BTCPay may fix the credential lifecycle for standard deployments, but it may not fully protect a node that is independently reachable. For operators, the key is to inventory how their LND node is reachable and ensure authorization material is rotated everywhere that the node can be accessed.
Reported impacts from operators
BTCPay’s warning is not theoretical. At least two operators publicly reported that their Lightning nodes were drained after the incident.
Foundation CEO Zach Herbert said the Lightning node associated with the hardware-wallet company’s setup was drained overnight. He later clarified that the company’s hot wallet was unaffected, while its Lightning channels were closed and funds were swept. The operators did not disclose the amount lost.
Bitcoin publication Citadel21 also reported that its Lightning node had been swept, without specifying the size of the loss.
While these reports are limited, they underline the risk that credential compromise can translate into direct fund movement via Lightning channels—reinforcing why BTCPay is restricting public remote access and why operators are being asked to check channel and peer activity closely.
Broader security implications for Bitcoin users
BTCPay’s incident comes amid a wider pattern of security problems affecting popular Bitcoin products. The BTCPay breach is described as part of the most recent wave of vulnerabilities impacting Bitcoin-adjacent tooling, following a Coldcard hardware-wallet flaw that was linked to more than $100 million in confirmed losses, as referenced in earlier coverage by Cointelegraph.
In other words, the underlying Bitcoin network is not the target; the failures occur in the surrounding systems—wallets, custody interfaces, and node management software—that users depend on to interact with the protocol.
For Lightning operators, the immediate next steps are clear: update to BTCPay Server version 2.4.2 (or apply the relevant fixes), verify that macaroon credentials are rotated as expected, and actively audit for unauthorized payments, unexpected channel behavior, unfamiliar peers, and balance mismatches. As BTCPay evaluates when to restore remote access, operators should also monitor how their own exposure routes outside BTCPay are configured—because those may determine whether the risk has truly been eliminated.
This article was originally published as BTCPay Limits Remote Lightning Access After Reported Node Drains on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

BTCPay Server has temporarily blocked public remote connections to Lightning Network nodes running the Lightning Network Daemon (LND) after attackers exploited a critical vulnerability to obtain credentials and move funds. The project says Lightning payments can still proceed, while it works to make remote access safe again.
In a security-driven update, BTCPay Server announced that version 2.4.2 installs LND version 0.21.1 and automatically regenerates the “macaroon” credential files used to control LND on standard deployments. Operators are also urged to inspect their nodes for signs of compromise, including unauthorized payments, unexpected channel closures, suspicious peers, and mismatches between recorded balances and what’s actually present onchain or in Lightning.
Key takeaways
BTCPay Server 2.4.2 restricts public remote connections to LND on Docker deployments, preventing external wallets from connecting via BTCPay domains or Tor onion addresses.
The update automatically installs LND 0.21.1 and regenerates LND macaroon credentials on standard BTCPay installations.
Operators should monitor for unauthorized payments, unexpected channel closures, unfamiliar peers, and balance discrepancies as indicators of theft.
If an operator exposes LND through their own reverse proxy, Tor service, port forwarding, or other routes outside BTCPay, credentials must be rotated separately.
Why BTCPay moved to block remote LND access
BTCPay Server’s advisory centers on a specific failure mode: a critical vulnerability that, according to BTCPay, allowed an unauthenticated remote attacker to obtain the macaroon credential files that authorize control of an LND node.
Those credentials are effectively the key material that lets a party manage or act on behalf of the node. BTCPay warned that exposed credentials could enable attackers to take control of the LND instance and move funds.
To reduce the attack surface while remediation is rolled out, BTCPay temporarily restricted public remote connections to Lightning nodes running LND software through BTCPay-managed endpoints. In its statement, BTCPay highlighted that the change blocks external wallets—including Zeus—from connecting through a BTCPay Server domain or a Tor onion address in Docker deployments.
Importantly for day-to-day operators, BTCPay said Lightning payments can continue. The restriction is framed as a stopgap measure until the project believes it is safe to restore the prior remote-access functionality.
What the 2.4.2 update changes for operators
BTCPay’s fix is delivered through version 2.4.2. The project says this release installs LND version 0.21.1 and automatically regenerates macaroon credentials on standard BTCPay installations.
That automatic rotation is designed to address the core risk identified in the security advisory: attackers who acquired credentials could use them after the fact unless the underlying authorization artifacts are replaced. By updating both the LND version and the credentials used for control, BTCPay is effectively forcing the authorization state to reset for typical deployments.
Alongside the software changes, BTCPay provided a targeted checklist for operators to validate that compromise has not occurred. The project advised checking for:
Unauthorized payments, which would indicate someone managed the node outside the operator’s intent.
Unexpected channel closures, which can signal hostile channel management or forced routing behavior.
Unfamiliar peers, which may reveal that an attacker established connections to the node.
Discrepancies between what operators expect and what appears in their onchain or Lightning balances.
Crucially, BTCPay also addressed a deployment reality: not every operator exposes LND only through BTCPay’s own routing. For those running their own reverse proxy, Tor service, forwarded port, or alternative access path, BTCPay said installing the update does not close access routes managed independently. In those cases, operators must rotate credentials separately for any LND exposure outside BTCPay-controlled endpoints.
Public reports of losses, without disclosed amounts
After the vulnerability and remediation became part of the public conversation, at least two operators reported losses linked to their Lightning nodes being swept, though neither disclosed the amount taken.
Foundation CEO Zach Herbert stated that the hardware-wallet company’s Lightning node was drained overnight. He later clarified that its hot wallet was unaffected, while its Lightning channels were closed and the funds were swept—suggesting the compromise was confined to Lightning-channel controls rather than broader wallet infrastructure.
Separately, Bitcoin publication Citadel21 reported that its Lightning node had been swept. Like Herbert’s comments, the publication did not provide figures for how much was lost.
While the reports do not establish the scale of the incident across all BTCPay users, they do reinforce the advisory’s practical implication: credential exposure can translate into actionable control over Lightning funds, and remediation needs to happen quickly and thoroughly.
Security incidents keep targeting Bitcoin infrastructure around the network
BTCPay’s incident is the latest in a run of security problems affecting popular Bitcoin products. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph highlighted a Coldcard hardware-wallet flaw associated with more than $100 million in confirmed losses, underscoring that the targets have tended to be software and infrastructure components built around Bitcoin—not the Bitcoin protocol itself.
This pattern matters because it shifts risk away from “Bitcoin as a network” and toward the systems people use to interact with it: wallets, node operators, payment servers, and bridging software between users and blockchain operations. In practice, that means the most valuable defenses are often operational—timely patching, correct credential rotation, careful exposure management, and continuous monitoring for anomalies.
BTCPay’s temporary restriction of remote access can be read as another step in that operational defense model: reduce inbound paths that could allow credential abuse, even as updates roll out and operators harden their setups.
For now, the most important thing for BTCPay operators is to apply version 2.4.2 and verify their exposure paths, then audit their nodes for the specific compromise indicators BTCPay listed. Readers should also watch for whether BTCPay restores remote-access features once it determines the remaining risk has been fully mitigated for the relevant deployment types.
This article was originally published as BTCPay Limits Remote Lightning Access After Attackers Steal Funds on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 110 has entered its mandatory-signaling window, but miners are signaling support at a fraction of the level needed to credibly move the network to a new consensus regime. According to a BIP-110 monitor, support was present in just 51 of the 2,016 blocks preceding block 961,632—about 2.53%—far below the 55% threshold required for early activation.
As of block 961,632, nodes enforcing BIP-110 started rejecting blocks that do not set version bit 4. Ordinary Bitcoin nodes, however, continued to accept both signaling and non-signaling blocks. A smaller “BIP-110 branch” appears to have emerged, but it quickly fell behind the chain that most miners are extending.
Key takeaways
Miners signaled BIP-110 support at about 2.53% in the run-up to block 961,632, well under the 55% early-activation requirement.
Starting at block 961,632, enforcement nodes reject blocks missing version bit 4, while non-enforcing nodes still accept them.
A minority enforcing branch formed but has not gained sufficient momentum to become the dominant chain.
BIP-110 aims to impose temporary limits on transaction/script and data sizes to curb non-monetary on-chain bloat, especially inscriptions.
Mandatory signaling begins, but the signal is weak
The core mechanics of BIP-110’s current phase hinge on miner signaling through version bit 4. During the defined mandatory-signaling window—blocks 961,632 through 963,647—nodes enforcing the proposal apply stricter rules: they reject blocks that do not carry the expected signal. The monitor data indicates that support during the prior 2,016-block period was too low for a sustained competitive chain to plausibly form.
Because the dominant chain is still being extended without broad signaling, the long-term viability of any rival branch depends on whether miners materially increase their participation. With limited support, a BIP-110 branch would at best advance slowly and could stall if miners continue extending blocks that enforcement nodes will not accept.
This is why the milestone matters beyond the immediate block height: it tests whether a contentious consensus change can move forward—or meaningfully alter behavior—without broad miner backing. That dynamic also raises the risk of an operational split: enforcing nodes could follow a chain that enforces BIP-110 rules, while the majority chain continues to follow the default rule set.
BIP-110’s proposed restrictions target on-chain data growth
BIP-110 was drafted by pseudonymous developer Dathon Ohm and is designed to introduce additional consensus restrictions intended to last roughly one year. The proposal focuses on constraining how much data different parts of a transaction can carry, including limits on output scripts and specific data-bearing elements.
In broad terms, it would:
Limit most new output scripts to 34 bytes.
Cap OP_RETURN outputs at 83 bytes.
Restrict certain data pushes and witness elements to 256 bytes.
Temporarily limit several Taproot-related features.
Importantly for users and wallet developers, outputs created before activation would be exempt from the new restrictions. Supporters of BIP-110 argue that these constraints would reduce incentives for inscriptions and other non-monetary data patterns that increase storage and bandwidth demands on node operators.
Criticism centers on network division and rule mismatches
Not everyone agrees that limiting data sizes is the right path. Critics—including Strategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor and Blockstream CEO Adam Back—have argued that BIP-110 could divide Bitcoin and lead to situations where some nodes reject transactions that are permitted under the network’s existing rules. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph highlighted their concerns in an article titled “Bitcoin leaders Michael Saylor and Adam Back rebuff BIP-110 proposal.”
The enforcement model during the signaling window heightens that concern. With enforcing nodes refusing non-signaling blocks, the network’s practical behavior can diverge even before a proposal’s restrictions fully take effect. This raises a key question for participants: whether the enforcement boundary will remain a technical footnote or become a persistent source of disagreement over block space usage.
Timing details and a discussed fallback
BIP-110’s deployment schedule defines several important points:
Block 963,648 marks the beginning of its locked-in state.
Block 965,664 is when the transaction restrictions would begin to take effect.
The version-bit mechanism is also a centerpiece of the proposal’s strategy. BIP-110 uses version bit 4 for miner signaling, with the mandatory-signaling window already underway. The current miner support level—about 2.53% in the monitor’s measured period—suggests that early activation is not likely to happen without a sharp change in miner behavior.
Separately, BIP-110 proponents have discussed contingencies. On Aug. 1, Bitcoin developer Chris Guida rebased preliminary code for a proof-of-work change originally written by Bitcoin Knots maintainer Luke Dashjr. Guida later described the code as a contingency if miners opposed BIP-110, though he did not set an activation date at the time.
While that fallback discussion does not change the current signaling reality, it underlines the central tension of the moment: supporters want a path to limit certain on-chain data behaviors, while opponents worry about the consequences of contentious rule enforcement in a system that relies on miner consensus and network-wide agreement.
Going forward, readers should watch whether miner signaling meaningfully climbs as the locked-in and effect windows approach. If signaling remains low, the conflict could stay confined to a small enforcing subset; if it rises, the schedule could accelerate a much broader—and more operationally significant—change in what blocks are accepted.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin BIP-110 Moves to Mandatory Signaling After Low Miner Support on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Donald Trump has warned that China could gain control of the global crypto sector as the US delays major market rules. The president stressed that America must protect its leadership in digital assets while lawmakers struggle with the CLARITY Act. His remarks add pressure on Congress as negotiations continue over regulations, ethics rules, and illicit finance provisions.
Trump Links Crypto Leadership to US National Strategy
Trump has placed cryptocurrency among the technologies that could shape America’s economic position in coming years. He also compared the strategic importance of crypto with artificial intelligence and urged the US to maintain leadership. Meanwhile, his administration continues to promote digital assets as an important part of the American technology sector.
The president warned that China could strengthen its position if the US slows crypto development. He also pointed to growing competition among countries seeking greater influence over emerging digital technologies. Therefore, Trump argued that restrictive policies could weaken America’s position while other nations expand their crypto industries.
Trump has also defended his administration’s approach toward digital asset regulation and innovation. He argued that excessive restrictions could discourage new businesses and push technological activity toward foreign markets. However, lawmakers continue to debate how the US should balance innovation with stronger safeguards across the crypto sector.
Clarity Act Faces Continued Senate Delays
Trump’s comments arrive as the CLARITY Act remains stalled in the US Senate. The market structure bill seeks to establish clearer rules for digital assets and define responsibilities across federal regulators. However, lawmakers have yet to resolve several major disputes surrounding the legislation.
Senate negotiations have focused on ethics requirements, illicit finance measures, and other provisions within the bill. These disagreements have slowed progress and reduced the chances of an immediate floor vote. At the same time, lawmakers continue working on changes that could secure broader support for the legislation.
The delay creates another challenge for Trump’s broader crypto agenda and his push for American leadership. A prolonged legislative process could leave the industry without a comprehensive market structure framework. Meanwhile, competing jurisdictions could use regulatory clarity to attract crypto companies, capital, and blockchain development.
Trump Challenges Ethics Concerns Over Crypto
Trump has also criticized proposals that could restrict his participation in crypto-related businesses while serving as president. The ethics debate has become another issue within the wider negotiations surrounding the CLARITY Act. Lawmakers have considered measures designed to address potential conflicts involving public officials and digital asset interests.
The president has indicated that his businesses remain under his family’s management during his administration. He has also said that he does not discuss government matters with his children. Consequently, Trump maintains that the ethics provisions should not prevent the US from advancing its digital asset sector.
The debate now combines regulatory policy, national competition, and ethics concerns around crypto. Trump continues pushing for US leadership, while Senate lawmakers seek agreement on the CLARITY Act. As negotiations continue, the final legislation could shape how America regulates crypto and competes with China in digital technology.
This article was originally published as Trump Warns China Could Challenge US Crypto Leadership as Clarity Act Stalls on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110) has entered its mandatory-signaling phase, but miners have sent the required signal in only a small fraction of recent blocks—raising doubts about whether the contentious ruleset can gain enough support to sustain a rival chain.
According to a BIP-110 monitor, at block 961,632 on Saturday miners signaled support in just 51 of the preceding 2,016 blocks, equivalent to 2.53%. That falls well below the 55% threshold the mechanism expects for early activation. While nodes enforcing BIP-110 began rejecting blocks that did not set version bit 4, standard Bitcoin nodes continued accepting both signaling and non-signaling blocks—creating a potential split between enforcing and non-enforcing participants.
Key takeaways
BIP-110 moved into a mandatory-signaling enforcement window at block 961,632, with enforcing nodes rejecting blocks lacking version bit 4.
Miners signaled only 2.53% of the time in the preceding 2,016 blocks—far under the 55% level referenced for early activation.
A BIP-110-compliant minority chain briefly emerged but quickly lagged behind the dominant chain.
The proposal aims to temporarily restrict on-chain data to reduce storage and bandwidth pressure, but critics warn it could force rule-divergent behavior across the network.
Mandatory signaling begins, but miner participation stays low
The immediate consequence of BIP-110’s start is procedural and practical: once block 961,632 was reached, nodes enforcing the proposal began applying stricter block acceptance criteria. Specifically, they reject blocks that do not set version bit 4 in their block version field.
By contrast, ordinary Bitcoin nodes continued following the existing consensus rules, accepting blocks regardless of whether version bit 4 was set. That difference matters because it turns a signaling experiment into an enforcement stress test—one where participants can end up on different views of “valid” blocks depending on which rules they choose to enforce.
The BIP-110 monitor data also suggests the enforcement did not immediately attract sufficient miner support to sustain momentum. With only 51 signaling blocks out of 2,016 before the window began, proponents would need a significant change in miner behavior to avoid a situation where a BIP-110 branch advances slowly—or stops producing blocks—while the non-enforcing majority chain continues.
What BIP-110 is trying to change on-chain
Written by pseudonymous developer Dathon Ohm, BIP-110 proposes additional consensus restrictions that are intended to last for roughly one year. The proposal is designed to target the way Bitcoin scripts carry data, particularly where large payloads increase the workload for network participants.
In broad terms, BIP-110 would:
Limit most new output scripts to 34 bytes.
Cap OP_RETURN outputs at 83 bytes.
Restrict certain data pushes and witness elements to 256 bytes.
Temporarily limit several Taproot-related features.
The proposal also includes an exception for legacy outputs: unspent transaction outputs created before activation would not be affected. That detail is important because it reduces the risk of instantly “breaking” already-existing UTXOs, shifting the impact toward new transaction construction after the proposal takes effect.
Supporters have argued that these limits would discourage practices they view as non-monetary—such as inscriptions and other uses that can increase storage and bandwidth costs for node operators. The proposal’s framing is that congestion and resource pressure should be addressed at the consensus level, rather than relying on voluntary policy restrictions.
Why the current phase tests a contentious consensus change
Mandatory-signaling windows are designed to show whether miners are willing to align their blocks with a new ruleset. In this case, the numbers are stark: 2.53% signaling in the monitored window preceding block 961,632 implies that miners are not broadly coordinating around BIP-110.
The result is a practical dilemma for supporters: without a substantially higher share of miner participation, an enforcing chain may struggle to grow. The source notes that a minority branch did appear but quickly fell behind the dominant chain, underscoring how difficult it is to maintain a separate chain when the majority of block production does not follow the same rule signals.
This is also where the proposal’s broader network implications come into focus. If enforcing nodes reject transactions or blocks that non-enforcing nodes accept, a consensus disagreement can emerge—not necessarily as a permanent fork, but as a period in which participants experience different validity rules.
The milestone is therefore less about whether BIP-110 is “right” in principle and more about whether supporters can make a contentious consensus change real without broad miner backing. If that coordination fails, the episode may still be valuable as a signal of how powerfully miner alignment is required for soft-fork style proposals that rely on version-bit signaling and enforcement behavior.
Pushback from major voices and a possible fallback path
The proposal has faced strong criticism from prominent figures in the Bitcoin ecosystem. The article notes that Strategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor and Blockstream CEO Adam Back argued that BIP-110 could divide Bitcoin and lead nodes to reject transactions that the network’s existing rules would otherwise permit. Earlier coverage on Cointelegraph also highlighted the ongoing dispute around spam and data-heavy usage of block space.
On the technical timeline, BIP-110’s deployment schedule uses version bit 4 and assigns block numbers to key states. The mandatory-signaling window runs from blocks 961,632 through 963,647, during which enforcing nodes reject blocks that do not include the signal. The specification then defines block 963,648 as the beginning of its “locked-in” state and block 965,664 as the point when its transaction restrictions take effect.
The source also points to discussions of a wider contingency. On Aug. 1, Bitcoin developer Chris Guida rebased preliminary code for a proof-of-work change originally written by Bitcoin Knots maintainer Luke Dashjr. Guida described the code as a contingency if miners opposed BIP-110, while stating that no activation date had been set. The details underscore that supporters and builders have considered alternatives if the signaling track does not achieve the needed coordination.
For now, however, the immediate reality is that the signaling signal is weak, and the cost of running enforcement rules without matching miner behavior is that compliant blocks may not keep pace with the chain produced by the majority.
Going forward, investors, traders, and node operators should watch how miner signaling evolves across subsequent windows, whether the enforcing chain continues to lag or disappears entirely, and whether developers continue to refine any contingency approaches if consensus support remains fragmented.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin BIP-110 Turns Mandatory Signaling as Miners Stay Under 3% on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The CLARITY Act has moved closer to a Senate floor vote after Majority Leader John Thune filed a cloture motion. The filing sets up Senate consideration of the digital asset market structure bill after the August recess. Meanwhile, lawmakers continue talks over stablecoin yield rules and ethics provisions before the Senate takes up the legislation.
Clarity Act Advances Toward Senate Vote
Senate Majority Leader John Thune filed the cloture motion early Saturday, August 8, for H.R. 3633. The measure covers the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, which seeks clearer federal rules for digital assets. Therefore, the filing creates a procedural path for the Senate to consider the bill in September.
The move follows Thune’s decision to postpone Senate consideration until lawmakers return from the August recess. However, the cloture filing keeps the legislation positioned for action when the Senate reconvenes. The Senate can now prepare for a floor process after lawmakers complete their recess.
The CLARITY Act would establish a federal framework for digital assets and define regulatory responsibilities. It would also provide clearer rules for crypto exchanges and other digital asset businesses. As a result, the bill could reshape how federal agencies oversee parts of the crypto market.
Senate Negotiations Continue Over Key Provisions
The cloture filing does not end negotiations over provisions that remain unresolved within the CLARITY Act. Lawmakers continue discussions over rules covering stablecoin yields, which have become a major point of disagreement. Meanwhile, banking groups have pushed for changes to the current language.
The stablecoin yield provision could influence how digital asset companies offer returns through certain products. Banks have raised concerns about the competitive impact of those provisions on traditional financial institutions. Therefore, lawmakers may continue negotiations before the Senate begins its floor debate.
The bill also contains an ethics agreement that lawmakers continue to review during the negotiations. However, reports indicate that the White House has not provided a final position on that proposal. Consequently, lawmakers still face several policy issues before they can secure broad support.
Clarity Act Sets September Legislative Path
The latest procedural move follows several days of uncertainty around the Senate timeline for the legislation. Senate leadership had previously indicated that lawmakers would not vote on the bill before the August recess. Now, the cloture filing places the measure on track for consideration after the Senate returns.
The Senate must still complete its procedural steps before lawmakers can hold a final vote. Moreover, senators need enough support to advance the bill through the chamber and resolve outstanding disagreements. The cloture process therefore marks progress, but it does not guarantee final passage.
The CLARITY Act remains a major part of the broader effort to create federal crypto market rules. Its passage could define regulatory roles and establish requirements for digital asset market participants. For now, Senate leaders have placed the legislation on the September agenda while negotiations continue.
This article was originally published as Clarity Act Advances as Thune Files Cloture for September Senate Vote on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The Clarity Act has moved closer to a Senate floor vote after Majority Leader John Thune filed a cloture motion. The filing sets up Senate consideration of the digital asset market structure bill after the August recess. Meanwhile, lawmakers continue talks over stablecoin yield rules and ethics provisions before the Senate takes up the legislation.
Clarity Act Advances Toward Senate Vote
Senate Majority Leader John Thune filed the cloture motion early Saturday, August 8, for H.R. 3633. The measure covers the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, which seeks clearer federal rules for digital assets. Therefore, the filing creates a procedural path for the Senate to consider the bill in September.
The move follows Thune’s decision to postpone Senate consideration until lawmakers return from the August recess. However, the cloture filing keeps the legislation positioned for action when the Senate reconvenes. The Senate can now prepare for a floor process after lawmakers complete their recess.
The Clarity Act would establish a federal framework for digital assets and define regulatory responsibilities. It would also provide clearer rules for crypto exchanges and other digital asset businesses. As a result, the bill could reshape how federal agencies oversee parts of the crypto market.
Senate Negotiations Continue Over Key Provisions
The cloture filing does not end negotiations over provisions that remain unresolved within the Clarity Act. Lawmakers continue discussions over rules covering stablecoin yields, which have become a major point of disagreement. Meanwhile, banking groups have pushed for changes to the current language.
The stablecoin yield provision could influence how digital asset companies offer returns through certain products. Banks have raised concerns about the competitive impact of those provisions on traditional financial institutions. Therefore, lawmakers may continue negotiations before the Senate begins its floor debate.
The bill also contains an ethics agreement that lawmakers continue to review during the negotiations. However, reports indicate that the White House has not provided a final position on that proposal. Consequently, lawmakers still face several policy issues before they can secure broad support.
Clarity Act Sets September Legislative Path
The latest procedural move follows several days of uncertainty around the Senate timeline for the legislation. Senate leadership had previously indicated that lawmakers would not vote on the bill before the August recess. Now, the cloture filing places the measure on track for consideration after the Senate returns.
The Senate must still complete its procedural steps before lawmakers can hold a final vote. Moreover, senators need enough support to advance the bill through the chamber and resolve outstanding disagreements. The cloture process therefore marks progress, but it does not guarantee final passage.
The Clarity Act remains a major part of the broader effort to create federal crypto market rules. Its passage could define regulatory roles and establish requirements for digital asset market participants. For now, Senate leaders have placed the legislation on the September agenda while negotiations continue.
This article was originally published as Clarity Act Advances As Thune Files Cloture For September Senate Vote on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has filed cloture on a motion to bring the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act—known as the CLARITY Act—to the Senate floor, setting up a pivotal procedural vote tied to the next legislative window. The move comes as lawmakers prepare to return to Washington after the August recess, with the Senate expected to reconvene on Sept. 15.
Under Senate rules, invoking cloture requires a 60-vote threshold, meaning Republicans will need support from Democrats to clear the procedural hurdle. The filing does not automatically translate into final passage; instead, it is designed to advance the bill for consideration and potentially a later vote on the legislation itself.
Key takeaways
John Thune filed cloture to take up the CLARITY Act, a procedural step requiring 60 votes.
The Senate is expected to reconvene on Sept. 15, with the vote anticipated shortly after.
Cloture clears a path for consideration but does not guarantee the bill will ultimately pass.
Negotiations have stalled over disagreements, including ethics provisions and how stablecoin-related rewards should be regulated.
Lawmakers are reportedly working on a bipartisan ethics addendum to address concerns tied to the president’s crypto-related financial interests.
Procedural push puts the CLARITY Act back on the calendar
According to the U.S. Senate Daily Press, the Majority Leader’s office confirmed that Thune filed cloture on the motion to bring the CLARITY Act to the Senate floor for consideration. The Senate Daily Press is tied to the daily publication of official Senate floor scheduling and related procedural matters, making it a direct channel for confirming when actions like cloture are submitted.
Cloture matters because it addresses debate length and related parliamentary tactics. With 60 votes required to invoke cloture, the bill’s fate in the chamber hinges on whether enough senators across party lines agree the legislation should move forward for lawmakers to debate and vote on substance.
Thune’s filing effectively repositions the CLARITY Act for action after negotiations failed to produce a deal before the August recess. Lawmakers now have additional time leading up to the September session—when procedural momentum can become substantive momentum, if the outstanding policy issues can be resolved.
Why the bill is politically and structurally significant
The CLARITY Act is widely described as a landmark effort to create a more uniform federal framework for how digital assets are categorized and overseen. The bill’s core aim is to establish a federal market structure for digital assets and clarify how regulators should apply existing securities and commodities laws.
In particular, the legislation is positioned to delineate when particular crypto assets fall under the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission versus the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. That clarity is a major concern for market participants because regulatory ambiguity can complicate product development, market access, and compliance strategies.
While the procedural step now puts the bill back into focus, the filing also underscores that the legislative path is still conditional. Even if senators clear cloture, the CLARITY Act could still face further obstacles in a later floor vote depending on whether negotiators can bridge remaining disagreements.
The sticking points: ethics rules and stablecoin-related provisions
The road to a compromise has been complicated by disputes over multiple elements, including ethics provisions and rules governing stablecoin rewards. The ethics question has been particularly difficult, according to reporting referenced in the original coverage: lawmakers have been unable to settle on proposed restrictions that would limit government officials—and their families—from issuing or profiting from digital assets while in office.
These provisions are more than technical language. Ethics rules can become a defining political battleground because they shape how lawmakers manage perceived conflicts of interest, especially in a sector where public officials may hold or interact with crypto investments.
Beyond ethics, stablecoin rewards have also reportedly been a source of friction. While the specific policy details are not laid out in the available text, the inclusion of stablecoin-related reward rules indicates that negotiators have to align on how certain yield or incentivization mechanics should be treated under U.S. oversight.
Until those issues are resolved, the CLARITY Act’s movement in the Senate may be best understood as a procedural advance—an effort to keep negotiations alive rather than a guarantee that consensus is close.
Reported attempt to break the ethics impasse
To address the ethics impasse, lawmakers have reportedly been working on a bipartisan addendum. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph referenced a proposal aimed at addressing Democratic concerns about President Donald Trump’s crypto-related financial interests, with Bloomberg reporting that the approach would require the president to divest from certain crypto-related businesses.
The rationale for such an addendum is straightforward: rather than relying solely on broad restrictions on officials and their families, negotiators may seek a targeted solution tied to the president’s holdings. The shift matters because it could alter the negotiation dynamics between parties—potentially allowing the ethics language to become more politically acceptable while still addressing conflict-of-interest concerns.
However, the existence of a proposed ethics framework does not itself confirm that the final language will be agreed upon or adopted. The next procedural vote will signal whether enough senators believe the bill is worth taking up despite remaining uncertainties, and it may also pressure negotiators to finalize language quickly enough to avoid further delays.
What to watch after Sept. 15
With the Senate expected to reconvene on Sept. 15 and the cloture vote anticipated soon after, the immediate question is whether Democrats will provide the additional votes needed to reach the 60 threshold. If they do, lawmakers can proceed to debate substance—but readers should still watch for how ethics and stablecoin-reward provisions evolve, since those items have been central to the breakdown in earlier negotiations.
This article was originally published as US Senate Set to Advance CLARITY Act on Sept. 15 After Thune Files Cloture on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.