As 2025 unfolds, the Bitcoin community and its developers are actively debating and preparing several important updates that could shape the future of the world’s largest cryptocurrency. These changes touch both the network’s technical foundation and the ecosystem growing around it.
Technical Upgrades: CTV and Covenants
One of the hottest topics this year is a potential soft fork introducing Check Template Verify (CTV) — a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP-119) that would bring so-called covenants to the network. Covenants are special restrictions that control how and when BTC can be spent.
If implemented, covenants could:
- Provide greater flexibility for setting transaction conditions
- Enhance fund security
- Enable more advanced Bitcoin use cases.
However, CTV is dividing opinion within the community. Supporters believe it could make Bitcoin more versatile and secure, while critics worry about the risks of added complexity and potential vulnerabilities. There’s also concern that improper implementation might threaten Bitcoin’s decentralization.
A key point of contention is that this upgrade could be activated via a User Activated Soft Fork (UASF) — meaning users, not miners, would drive the upgrade. This method would sidestep the usual miner approval process, setting a potentially controversial precedent and fueling heated debate.
For context, the last major Bitcoin network upgrade — Taproot — went live in November 2021, bringing:
- Improved privacy through signature aggregation
- Lower transaction fees and faster transaction speeds
- Support for more sophisticated smart contracts and DeFi applications on Bitcoin.
Introducing new capabilities like covenants could further transform Bitcoin into a powerful tool for financial innovation, increase its resistance to censorship, and expand its real-world applications. But as always, every significant change undergoes a lengthy review and consensus-building process to minimize risks to users and the network as a whole.
A Community Rift Over Bitcoin Core Changes
In 2025, the Bitcoin community once again finds itself on the brink of a major split — this time over proposed changes to Bitcoin Core, the software that powers most of the network. The main source of tension is a decision by developers to lift restrictions on the OP_RETURN field, which would allow more non-financial data to be stored on the blockchain. This proposal ignited a fierce debate about Bitcoin’s purpose: Should the blockchain remain strictly for financial transactions? Or should it evolve into a platform capable of storing all kinds of data?
Amid the growing discord, Samson Mow, CEO of JAN3, suggested creating a fork of Bitcoin Core to resolve the OP_RETURN conflict. In his view, the current project governance model struggles to handle such disagreements effectively, and developer incentives are often misaligned. Mow argues that a new fork should have a clearer governance and funding structure to avoid developers participating solely for personal gain or reputation.
The controversy has also boosted the popularity of alternative node software like Bitcoin Knots, which now accounts for 8.6% of public Bitcoin nodes — a sign of growing discontent with Bitcoin Core’s direction and a push for more flexibility and independence within the network.
Of course, community divisions are nothing new for Bitcoin. Similar disputes in the past have led to hard forks and the creation of alternative cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Cash. These conflicts stem from Bitcoin’s decentralized nature and the difficulty of reaching consensus: even a small group of influential participants can block proposed changes, leading to deadlock situations where neither side backs down and tensions linger for years.
If no agreement is reached, Bitcoin could face another hard fork — splitting the current network into two separate chains with different rules. This would create confusion among users and investors, disrupt services, and potentially harm Bitcoin’s reputation. Analysts note that these conflicts highlight fundamental disagreements over Bitcoin’s purpose: should it remain a pure payment system, or evolve into a broader platform for storing and transferring all types of data?
