A novel Bitcoin enhancement proposal necessitates a twelve-month soft fork for Bitcoin while the transaction filtering debate is resolved by developers, but the wording within it has generated contention.
Outrage on X has been sparked by a novel Bitcoin enhancement proposal for a soft fork, due to a segment that some assert is threatening legal repercussions for those who decline the fork.
The proposal, which was created by core developer Luke Dashjr and published on Friday, represents the latest salvo in the recent Bitcoin Core versus Knots debate, a conflict that revolves around the intended use of Bitcoin and whether non-financial transactions should be filtered out.
Bitcoin Soft Fork Proposal Sparks Debate Over Data Restrictions and Legal Concerns
Restriction of data in Bitcoin (BTC) transactions is the aim of the proposal through a one-year soft fork while a more permanent solution is devised, addressing concerns that illegal and immoral content can be embedded into the blockchain by bad actors following the Bitcoin Core v30 update.
Nevertheless, under the enhancement proposal, it has been written by the developers on line 261 that “there is a moral and legal impediment to any attempt to reject this soft fork.”
Then starting on line 270 and continuing to line 272, further detail is provided by the developers: “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. However, strictly speaking, you are free to choose.”
Deemed a Legal Threat by Some
Bitcoin, the inaugural cryptocurrency, was designed to disrupt traditional financial institutions and empower individuals. Critics of the proposal believe any form of censorship or restriction on data sizes contradicts Bitcoin’s core principle of permissionless use.
In a post on Sunday, the wording was labeled “Orwellian” by a user with the handle Bam, the founder of a Bitcoin education resource and systems engineer, a reference to the literary works of George Orwell, an author who depicted a future totalitarian state in his book 1984.
Ben Kaufman, a coder and software engineer, stated that a “fork under the threat of legal consequences represents the clearest case of an attack on Bitcoin.”
Canadian cryptographer and computer scientist Peter Todd also provided comment with a screenshot of Dashjr, asserting that “it’s clear his soft-fork is expected to be adopted due to legal threats.”
Galaxy Digital’s Alex Thorn provided a comment on Todd’s post, with agreement that it’s “explicitly an attack on Bitcoin; however, it’s also incredibly stupid.”
Warnings were also issued by some that a chain split could be faced by the network if miners and users become divided over activation.
Some Say It’s Being Misread
Messages have long been able to be embedded onchain by users; the recent Bitcoin Core v30 update permits considerably larger data payloads, which the proposal alleges has created a potential for anyone participating in the network to be criminally liable if the content placed in the transactions is unlawful.
It is argued by some X users that this liability is what the proposal is referencing, specifically that failure to adopt the fork could result in illicit content on the blockchain, which could consequently lead to legal or moral repercussions.
This assertion also appeared to be supported by Dashjr in the comments of a user who claimed that rejecting the soft fork is illegal, posting that it “doesn’t say that. Maybe a clarification can be proposed by you if you think it’s unclear.”
“May isn’t certainly. Also, for some context, I believe this part originated in an earlier draft, which didn’t have the proactive activation (ie, the opposing chain would definitely include CSAM) — so it would probably make sense to add clarification,”
he added.
Soft Fork May End Up Being Irrelevant
The proposition for the soft fork is already on track with no technical objections, according to Dashjr.
However, a method to exploit the fix in the proposal may have already been discovered by Todd. He claims a transaction containing the entire text of the proposed fork has been recorded by him that is “100% standard and fully compatible” with the enhancement proposal.
In the interim, it was asserted by BitMEX Research that a malicious entity aiming to execute a double-spend maneuver could place illicit content onchain to “trigger a re-org and succeed with their attack,” thereby creating an “economic incentive” to place unlawful material onchain.
