A new Bitcoin improvement proposal proposed by core developer Luke Dashjr has ignited considerable backlash on social media platform X, primarily due to its contentious wording regarding potential legal repercussions for those who might reject the proposed soft fork. Released on Friday, this proposal is part of the ongoing debate between Bitcoin Core and Knots, which centers around the fundamental use of Bitcoin and whether non-financial transactions should be excluded.
The intent of the proposal is to impose restrictions on data sizes within Bitcoin (BTC) transactions for a year while a more robust solution is formulated. This action addresses rising concerns that bad actors are exploiting the blockchain to embed illegal and unethical content following the Bitcoin Core v30 update.
Notably, a controversial section in the proposal warns that, as stated on line 261, “there is a moral and legal impediment to any attempt to reject this soft fork.” Further, lines 270 to 272 elaborates, saying that rejecting the soft fork “may subject you to legal or moral consequences, or could result in you splitting off to a new altcoin like Bcash.” Though it reassures that one is “free to choose,” many interpret these statements as thinly-veiled legal threats against dissenters.
The cryptocurrency community has expressed strong disapproval. Critics argue that any form of censorship contradicts Bitcoin’s foundational ethos of permissionless use. A notable post by Bam, the founder of a Bitcoin education platform, describes the wording as “Orwellian,” invoking George Orwell’s portrayal of a dystopian future. Similarly, coder Ben Kaufman labeled the proposal as “the most clear case of an attack on Bitcoin.”
Peter Todd, a respected Canadian cryptographer, expressed skepticism regarding Dashjr’s intentions, suggesting that the proposal is designed to ensure adoption through implied legal pressures. In response, Alex Thorn of Galaxy Digital labeled the proposal not only as a direct assault on Bitcoin but also “incredibly stupid.” Concerns about a possible chain split also loom large, with warnings that divergent views among miners and users could fracture the network.
However, some community members believe the proposal may have been misunderstood. Historically, users have had the ability to embed messages on the blockchain, and the recent Bitcoin Core v30 update has expanded data payload capabilities. Supporters argue that the liability referenced in the proposal specifically addresses concerns that failing to adopt the fork could facilitate the presence of illicit content on the blockchain, leading to possible legal ramifications.
In the comments section, Dashjr appeared to respond to the criticism, suggesting the controversial wording could be clarified: “May isn’t certainly. Also, for some context, I believe this part originated in an earlier draft, which didn’t have the proactive activation.”
While the soft fork is firmly on track with no technical objections noted by Dashjr, concerns linger regarding its relevance. Todd has purportedly discovered a method to exploit the proposal by recording a transaction containing the entire text, which he claims aligns perfectly with the soft fork’s standards. In parallel, BitMEX Research has indicated that a malicious actor could exploit the situation to conduct a double-spend attack by embedding illegal content, thus introducing economic incentives to proliferate unlawful material on the blockchain.
