Update: Oct. 28, 4:47 am: This article has been revised to clarify the identity of the creator of the new Bitcoin proposal.
A recent Bitcoin improvement proposal for a soft fork has ignited controversy on X due to a section perceived as imposing legal repercussions on those opposed to the fork.
The new proposal, authored by a user going by dathomohm, and published on Friday, builds upon an earlier proposal from core developer Luke Dashjr, and represents the latest chapter in the ongoing Bitcoin Core vs Knots discussion, focused on the intended uses of Bitcoin and whether non-financial transactions should be curtailed.
The proposal seeks to limit data within Bitcoin (BTC) transactions via a one-year soft fork while a sustainable solution is formulated, addressing fears that malicious individuals might insert illegal or unethical content into the blockchain following the Bitcoin Core v30 update.
Nonetheless, under the improvement proposal, the developers have stated on line 261 that “there is a moral and legal barrier to any attempt to reject this soft fork.”
Then, beginning on line 270 and extending to line 272, the developers elaborate, “rejecting this soft fork may expose you to legal or moral repercussions, or lead you to split off into a new altcoin like Bcash. However, strictly speaking, you are free to choose.”
Some have labeled it a legal threat
Bitcoin, the pioneering cryptocurrency, was conceived to challenge traditional financial entities and empower individuals. Opponents of the proposal argue that any form of censorship or data size limitations contradicts Bitcoin’s fundamental principle of permissionless use.
In a post on Sunday, a user identified as Bam, the founder of a Bitcoin educational platform and systems engineer, described the language as “Orwellian,” referencing the writings of George Orwell, who illustrated a future totalitarian state in his book 1984.
Ben Kaufman, a coder and software developer, stated that a “fork backed by the threat of legal consequences is the clearest form of an attack on Bitcoin.”
Canadian cryptographer and computer scientist Peter Todd also weighed in with a screenshot of Dashjr, noting it’s “evident he anticipates his soft fork being adopted due to legal threats.”
Galaxy Digital’s Alex Thorn remarked on Todd’s post and concurred that it’s “explicitly an attack on Bitcoin, yet it’s also incredibly foolish.”
Additionally, some cautioned that if miners and users divide over activation, the network could risk a chain split.
Others believe it’s been misinterpreted
Users have long had the ability to embed messages onchain; the recent Bitcoin Core v30 update allows for considerably larger data payloads, which the proposal asserts has made participants in the network potentially liable if the content in transactions is illegal.
Some X users contend that this liability is what the proposal references, indicating that failing to adopt the fork could result in illegal content on the blockchain, potentially leading to legal or moral ramifications.
Dashjr also appeared to back this perspective in the comments, responding to a user who claimed rejecting the soft fork was illegal, noting that it “doesn’t state that. Perhaps you could propose a clarification if you feel it’s ambiguous.”
“May isn’t certainly. Furthermore, for clarity, I believe this section originated in an earlier draft, which didn’t have the proactive activation (i.e., the opposing chain would certainly include CSAM) — so it would likely make sense to add clarification,” he added.
Soft fork may be moot regardless
The proposal for the soft fork is currently advancing with no technical objections, according to Dashjr.
Related: Another ‘Satoshi era’ wallet from 2009 has been activated and moved Bitcoin
However, Todd may have already discovered a means to exploit the fix proposed. He claims to have documented a transaction featuring the entire text of the proposed fork that is “100% standard and fully compliant” with the improvement proposal.
In the meantime, BitMEX Research indicated that a malicious actor intending to carry out a double-spend attack could insert illegal content onchain to “initiate a re-org and succeed with their attack,” thus establishing an “economic incentive” to post unlawful content onchain.
Magazine: The Enigmatic Mr. Nakamoto author: Discovering Satoshi would harm Bitcoin
