The debates about Bitcoin’s future are nothing new, but this week the discussion acquired a more clear advantage. One of Bitcoin’s long data developers was at the center of a storm about immutability, censorship and what means “saving” the protocol.
The controversy intensified on September 25, after an article published by the anger that claims to reveal that Luke Dashjr, Bitcoin Knots software mainer, advocates a hard fork that would install a reliable multisig committee with power to retroactively alter the blockchain, review the transactions and eliminate the illicit content.
A hard blockchain bifurcation is a permanent divergence of the previous version of the Blockchain software, which requires that all participants be updated to the new protocol because the new and old versions are incompatible.
The piece cited the supposed filtered text messages in which Dashjr supposedly warned: “O Bitcoin dies or we have to trust someone.”
The story extended through X, attracting hundreds of thousands of views and intensifying a long -lasting philosophical crack: Should Bitcoin continue to be a layer of neutral settlement, or developers should actively filter what counts as a legitimate use of the network?
Dashjr rejected the statements directly. “The truth is that I have not proposed a hardfork or anything like that, and these bad actors are only grabbing straws to slander me and try to undermine my efforts to save Bitcoin again,” he wrote.
The anger responded with a meme in the sense of demanding who sent the leaked messages that his story shared.
Dashjr repeated his position several times for the next 24 hours. “No, nothing changed. No one is asking for a hard fork yet.” Public. In another answer, he stressed: “There is no hard bifurcation.”
The knots vs. Nucleus division
Behind the dispute is a deeper division between the Bitcoin Knots project of Dashjr and the largest Bitcoin Core software used by the majority of the network.
Nodes enforce the strictest transaction policies, which include blocking non -financial data, such as inscriptions of ordinals and runes. Dashjr and its supporters argue that such measures protect the monetary integrity of Bitcoin and safeguard regulatory risks. Central developers have historically adopted a more permissive approach, tolerating non -standard data provided it does not break the consensus.
The supposed hard fork proposal cut the heart of that tension. For Dashjr’s critics, it seemed to confirm the fears that his vision requires compromising Bitcoin’s immutability principle. For its defenders, the leak was an opportunistic stain designed to derail the case of stronger spam filters.
Among its defenders was Udi Wertheimer, co -founder of Taproot Wizards, a Bitcoin ordinal project, so most would assume that everyone who opposes Dashjr is embodied.
“He is not a Luke fan, but this is a successful piece and false news. He is not proposing this,” Wertheimer published in X, referring to the alleged hard fork plan.
“I am not (obviously) not on Luke’s side, but … this is just a piece of low quality neglect,” he wrote.
Wertheimer concluded that Dasjhr leaked messages were a hypothetical discussion about the use of zero knowledge tests to allow knots nodes to avoid downloading “spam”.
“This is, as always, a hamburger,” he concluded. “It is quite obvious to me that this proposal is never implemented, and even if it did, it does not censure the network and does not divide the network, and remains totally compatible with Core.”
It is worth noting that in the last 24 hours, 2.2% fell to operate around $ 109,000, a fall of more than 5.5% in the last week.
While there is no direct evidence that links this fall with the controversy over the alleged Dashjr plans, the moment is not useful. In cryptographic markets, uncertainty alone can amplify the pressure down and rumors of protocol agitation tend to enliven exactly that.
