Bitcoin’s Core Conflict: Spam Filters vs. Censorship Risks

Bitcoin Developer Faces Storm Over Alleged Hard Fork Proposal

Luke Dashjr, maintainer of the Bitcoin Knots software, has denied allegations that he proposed a hard fork to implement a trusted multisignature committee with authority to retroactively alter the blockchain. The claims, first published by The Rage on Sept. 25, 2025, cited purported leaked text messages suggesting Dashjr advocated for a mechanism to remove illicit content, such as child sexual abuse material (CSAM), using zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs) and a multisig committee^[1]. Dashjr responded unequivocally, stating, “The truth is I have not proposed a hard fork or anything of the sort,” and accusing critics of “grasping at straws to slander me and try to undermine my efforts to save Bitcoin again”^[1].

The controversy has reignited a long-standing divide between Bitcoin Knots and the broader Bitcoin Core community. Knots enforces stricter policies to block non-monetary data like Ordinals and Runes tokens, while Core developers take a more permissive approach^[1]. The alleged hard fork proposal, if implemented, would introduce a special-case pathway to excise data post-confirmation, a departure from Bitcoin’s consensus model where reorgs are emergent and economically disincentivized. Critics argue such a move could enable compelled takedowns, politicized censorship, or regulatory capture^[2].

Reactions from industry figures have been polarized. Udi Wertheimer, co-founder of the Ordinals project Taproot Wizards, dismissed the report as a “hit piece,” emphasizing that the leaked messages discussed hypothetical solutions like ZKPs to filter spam without splitting the network^[1]. Blockstream CEO Adam Back warned that the proposal “skipped past slippery slope arguments” and “jumped straight to the censorship tech” previously criticized as threats to Bitcoin’s immutability^[2]. Abra founder Bill Barhydt likened the situation to “Bitcoin War 2,” cautioning that hard fork rumors could trigger a “bait-and-switch” by a small faction^[2].

The debate has also sparked market volatility. Bitcoin’s price fell 2.2% to $109,000 in the 24 hours following the leak, with a 5.5% decline over the preceding week^[1]. While no direct causal link has been established, the timing of the price drop coincided with heightened uncertainty. The leaked messages, which suggested a “buried-state modification” to flag problematic transactions, intensified fears that Bitcoin’s censorship resistance—a core tenet of its design—could be compromised^[2].

Dashjr has not published a technical specification or activation plan for the proposed mechanism, leaving the debate rooted in speculation. The absence of a formal proposal has led some to question the validity of the leak, with The Rage journalist L0la L33tz acknowledging the risks of “burning Bitcoin to the ground over JPEGs”^[2]. Meanwhile, a faction of developers has called for caution, advocating a “centuries-long timescale” for protocol changes to avoid destabilizing the network^[2].

The controversy underscores the philosophical rift over Bitcoin’s governance: should the protocol remain a neutral settlement layer, or should developers actively filter non-financial use cases? Dashjr’s supporters argue that stricter spam filters protect Bitcoin’s monetary integrity, while detractors view any centralized authority as antithetical to its decentralized ethos^[1]. As the debate unfolds, the community remains divided on whether the proposed hard fork represents a necessary evolution or an existential threat to Bitcoin’s core principles.