Debates about Bitcoin’s future are nothing new, but this week the discussion took a sharper edge. One of Bitcoin’s long -time developers was at the center of a storm about immutability, censorship and what it means to “save” the protocol.
The controversy escalated on September 25 following an article published by The Rage, who claimed to reveal that Luke Dashjr maintains of the Bitcoin Knots software advocates a hard fork that would install a trusted multi -selection selection for retroactively to change blockchain, undergo transactions and remove illegal content.
A blockchain -hard fork is a permanent divergence from the previous version of the blockchain software that requires all participants to upgrade to the new protocol because the new and old versions are incompatible.
The play quoted alleged leaked text messages where DASHJR allegedly warned: “Either Bitcoin dies or we have to trust someone.”
The story spread across X, drawing hundreds of thousands of views and intensified a long -lasting philosophical cleft: Should Bitcoin remain a neutral settlement layer, or should develop actively filter what counts as legitimate use of the network?
DASHJR DISCLOSED THE AGE DIRECTLY. “The truth is that I haven’t suggested a hardfork or any of that kind of thing, and these bad actors are just grabbing straw to baktal me and try to undermine my efforts to save Bitcoin again,” he wrote.
The rage responded with a meme to the effect of demanding to know who sent the leaked messages that its history shared.
DASHJR repeated its position several times over the following 24 hours. “No, nothing changed. No one still requires a hard fork.” He posted. In another answer he emphasized, “There is no hard fork.”
The knots vs. core division
Behind the dispute lies a deeper gap between Dashjr’s Bitcoin Knots project and the wider Bitcoin core core software used by most of the network.
Knots enforce tighter transaction policies, including blocking non-financial data, such as ordinary inscriptions and runes tokens. DASHJR and HIS supporters claim that such measures protect Bitcoin’s monetary integrity and protect it from regulatory risks. Core developers have historically taken a more allowed approach and tolerate non-standard data as long as they do not break consensus.
The alleged hard fork proposal cut to the heart of this tension. For Dashjr’s critics, it seemed to confirm fear that his vision requires compromising Bitcoin’s principle of immutability. For his defenders, the leak was an opportunistic smear designed to derail the case for stronger spam filters.
Among his defenders were Udi Wertheimer, co-founder of Taproot Wizards, a Bitcoin Ordinal project, so one, which most people assume, embodies everything that DASHHR is against.
“Not a Luke fan, but this is a hit piece and fake news. He does not suggest this,” Wertheimer released X, referring to the supposed hard fork plan.
“I’m (obviously) not on Luke’s side, but … this is just a sloppy low -quality propaganda,” he wrote.
Wertheimer concluded that what Dasjhr’s leaked messages were a hypothetical discussion about using zero-knowledge proof to allow nodes to avoid downloading “spam.”
“As always, this is a no burger,” he concluded. “It’s pretty obvious to me that this proposal is never implemented, and even though it did, censoring it does not censor the network and does not divide the network and remain fully compatible with the core.”
It’s worth noting that over the last 24 hours, Glide 2.2% to trade with about $ 109,000, a drop over 5.5% in the last week.
Although there is no direct evidence that connects this dip to the controversy over the alleged plans of DASHJR, the timing is hardly useful. In crypto markets, uncertainty alone can amplify downward pressure and rumors of protocol upheaval tend to stand exactly that.
