<\/p>\n
Leaked messages tied to Bitcoin developer Luke Dashjr hint at a network change that could let a small committee censor some transactions.\n<\/p>\n
Bitcoin<\/a>\u2019s community once again finds itself split over its core decentralization ideals, after leaked messages tied to Luke Dashjr<\/a>, a Bitcoin developer, hinted at a possible network upgrade to censor illicit content from the blockchain.<\/p>\n On Thursday, Sept. 25, tech media The Rage reported<\/a> that Dashjr may be considering a hard fork to create a \u201ctrusted\u201d committee for Bitcoin. Citing leaked messages, The Rage reported that the proposed committee would have the power to retroactively scrub illegal content from the largest blockchain<\/a> \u2014 a move some say could damage Bitcoin\u2019s core principle of censorship resistance.<\/p>\n Dashjr rejected the claims, calling the article \u201cfake news\u201d in an X post<\/a> on Sept. 26, shortly after the story broke. However, he hasn\u2019t denied sending the messages published by The Rage, which the outlet says were verified by video proof.<\/p>\n Eyal Gruper, founder & CEO of RITREK, a platform for BTC self-custody, told The Defiant in commentary that Dashjr\u2019s idea of a multisig committee \u201cwould break that neutrality,\u201d adding: <\/p>\n \u201cIt means even a perfectly valid pre-signed transaction could be blocked because a small group of people decided they didn\u2019t like the sender, the recipient, or the purpose. The moment people, not the protocol, decide what\u2019s valid – Bitcoin stops being Bitcoin.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n Eneko Kn\u00f6rr, CEO & co-founder of yield-bearing stablecoin<\/a> project Stabolut, noted in commentary for The Defiant that the entire debate \u201chighlights a fundamental truth about Bitcoin in my opinion: its greatest strength is that no one is in control. Its censorship resistance is paramount.\u201d<\/p>\n According to Kn\u00f6rr, any proposal to put a committee in charge of deciding which transactions to accept or reject \u201cwould fundamentally violate Bitcoin’s core principles of freedom and neutrality.\u201d<\/p>\n As the Stabolut co-founder explained, the debate was largely fueled by the surge of Ordinals<\/a> and Inscriptions<\/a>, which triggered discussions on Bitcoin’s primary purpose.<\/p>\n \u201cWhile this activity did lead to temporary network congestion and higher fees, the network has since adapted. With transaction fees having normalized, the argument for implementing such drastic and dangerous changes is no longer compelling,\u201d Kn\u00f6rr said.<\/p>\n The debate over how Bitcoin handles non-financial data has been simmering for years. Core developers are preparing to release v30 of the reference client in October, which changes how nodes relay data via OP_RETURN<\/a>, a transaction field that lets people attach small amounts of metadata such as notes or links.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n Dashjr and other supporters of Bitcoin Knots, an alternative Bitcoin node client he maintains, oppose the change, warning it could make it easier for shady content to spread on the blockchain.<\/p>\n The underlying concern isn\u2019t new. Back in 2018, researchers from RWTH Aachen University found<\/a> that Bitcoin\u2019s blockchain already contained non-financial content including an embedded image and hundreds of links to child abuse material, showing how the system\u2019s data field can be misused.<\/p>\n \u201cBitcoin\u2019s blockchain contains at least eight files with sexual content. While five files only show, describe, or link to mildly pornographic content, we consider the remaining three instances objectionable for almost all jurisdictions,\u201d the researchers wrote in the report.<\/p>\n The Guardian reported<\/a> at the time that even a handful of such files could make possession of the blockchain legally risky in countries like Germany, the UK, and the U.S.<\/p>\n Reactions to The Rage\u2019s story from last week show just how divided the community still is. Blockstream CEO Adam Back said in an X post<\/a> on Sept. 26 that Dashjr\u2019s supposed proposal \u201cjump[s] straight to the censorship tech\u201d he and others had warned against.<\/p>\n On the other side, Udi Wertheimer, co-founder of Taproot Wizards, dismissed the report as a \u201csloppy low quality propaganda piece,\u201d arguing in an X post<\/a> the same day that the leaked conversation was hypothetical and mischaracterized as a hardfork plan.<\/p>\n The Defiant reached out to Black and Dashjr for comments but didn\u2019t hear back by press time.<\/p>\n A closer look at the screenshots from The Rage shows why both sides are making their case. The chat comes across as technical brainstorming about zero-knowledge proofs<\/a> and ways for Knots nodes to skip certain transactions, which makes it seem more like a hypothetical discussion.<\/p>\n At the same time, the same screenshots bring up multisig sign offs and outside legal drafting, which gives some weight to concerns about governance and censorship.<\/p>\n While Giacomo Zucco, an investor in OCEAN, the Bitcoin mining pool co-founded by Dashjr and financially backed by Jack Dorsey, pushed back against the article\u2019s framing in a Friday X post<\/a>, he also implied that the content of the screenshots \u201cis nothing that Luke hasn\u2018t said publicly hundreds of times in the past.\u201d<\/p>\n In follow-up posts, Zucco explained<\/a> that the \u201chard fork\u201d mentioned is theoretical, tied to hypothetical light clients using ZK proofs, and implied<\/a> that Dashjr wouldn\u2019t consider a hard fork \u201cuntil he gets consensus by everyone.\u201d<\/p>\nOP_RETURN and Illicit Content On-Chain<\/h2>\n
\u2018Attack on Bitcoin\u2019<\/h2>\n