A new Bitcoin improvement proposal has sparked significant controversy within the Bitcoin community, leading to heated debates among developers and users. The proposal, designated as Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 444 (BIP-444), is put forth by an anonymous developer known by the alias “Dathon Ohm.” It suggests implementing a temporary soft fork aimed at restricting the amount of arbitrary data inclusion in Bitcoin transactions. Proponents argue that the proposal is designed to safeguard node operators from potential legal ramifications. However, detractors are raising alarms, suggesting it constitutes an infringement on the network’s freedom and an act of censorship.
Central to the discord is a contentious line in the BIP-444 document. Specifically, line 261 states, “there is a moral and legal impediment to any attempt to reject this soft fork.” Just a few lines later, the document warns that “rejecting this soft fork may subject you to legal or moral consequences or could result in you splitting off to a new altcoin like Bcash.” This phrasing has ignited backlash on social media platforms, particularly X (formerly Twitter), where critics accuse the authors of employing “legal threats” to pressure the Bitcoin community into acceptance.
Ben Kaufman, a Bitcoin developer, characterized the proposal as a blatant attack on Bitcoin. Similarly, Canadian cryptographer Peter Todd expressed concern, suggesting that the line implies the expectation of adoption due to legal coercion. Responding to the uproar, Luke Dashjr, a longstanding Bitcoin Core developer who has voiced criticism of Ordinals, publicly supported the proposal while denying authorship. He clarified on social media that the soft fork is a temporary measure to allow time for a more permanent solution and claimed its implementation is proceeding without technical objections.
BIP-444 surfaces following the recent launch of Bitcoin Core v30, which relaxed the previous 83-byte limit on OP_RETURN data, enabling larger data payloads in Bitcoin transactions. So far, only around 6.5% of reachable nodes have implemented this update, reigniting discussions on Bitcoin’s intended usage. The authors of BIP-444 argue that the increased data capacity threatens node operators with criminal liability should illegal content, such as child sexual abuse material, be uploaded to the blockchain.
The proposal delineates a series of technical restrictions: OP_RETURN outputs would revert to an 83-byte limit, with other scriptPubKeys capped at 34 bytes and data push sizes limited to 256 bytes. Additionally, it seeks to invalidate unused script versions, restrict Taproot Merkle trees, and disable the OP_IF command in Tapscript, effectively impeding Ordinals inscriptions. These changes would render some previously valid transactions invalid, although the authors note that the soft fork would remain in effect for only approximately one year while a permanent solution is sought.
Despite the technical justification, the language within the proposal has unsettled numerous community members. Critics have labelled the “moral and legal impediment” phrase as “Orwellian,” drawing comparisons to oppressive regimes depicted in George Orwell’s dystopian novel, 1984. Others assert that leveraging moral or legal arguments to enforce a fork stands in stark contrast to Bitcoin’s foundational principle of voluntary consensus.
Advocates of BIP-444 contend that the legal phrasing has been misconstrued and relates to the potential liabilities associated with operating nodes that might host illegal content, rather than presenting any real threat to dissenters. Dashjr himself suggested that the text might have originated from an earlier draft, indicating that further clarity could be beneficial. Nonetheless, skepticism persists. Jameson Lopp, co-founder of the Bitcoin security firm Casa, criticized the proposal for its vague definitions of “illegal or immoral” content and highlighted the ongoing debate among legal experts regarding the liabilities faced by node operators.
Some community members have raised concerns that endorsing this proposal could provoke a split in the network. A user known as Leonidas, active in the Ordinals community, warned that attempts to censor data transactions could set a dangerous precedent akin to state censorship of financial transactions.
In an interesting twist, an anonymous individual has reportedly found a workaround to accommodate the entirety of BIP-444 while remaining “100% standard and fully compatible” with the proposed rules. This revelation, if validated, could effectively undermine the technical rationale behind the soft fork.
BIP-444 has yet to be formally submitted to Bitcoin’s development mailing list, a critical step for any improvement proposal to move toward official review or activation. However, the uproar over its language has deepened existing divisions among developers concerning the future trajectory of Bitcoin’s protocol.
