Bitcoin’s Data War: Freedom vs. Anti-Spam in Fork Fears

Luke Dashjr, a prominent Bitcoin Core developer and maintainer of the Bitcoin Knots project, has categorically denied recent allegations that he is planning a hard fork to address concerns over the storage of illegal content on the Bitcoin blockchain. The controversy emerged after TheRage published an article citing purportedly leaked messages suggesting Dashjr considered a temporary hard fork to combat risks associated with the upcoming Bitcoin Core v30 (v30) update. The update, scheduled for October 2025, modifies how the network’s mempool handles arbitrary data stored via the OP_RETURN feature, a change critics argue could facilitate the spread of illicit content such as child sexual abuse material (CSAM). Dashjr has repeatedly dismissed the claims as “fake news,” emphasizing, “There is no hardfork,” and accusing detractors of spreading misinformationLeaked Messages Spark Bitcoin Hard Fork Rumors, Dashjr Denies^[1].

The debate centers on a long-standing ideological divide between Bitcoin Core and Dashjr’s Knots project. Bitcoin Core, the dominant reference implementation, has historically taken a permissive stance toward non-monetary data on the blockchain, while Knots enforces stricter rules to block transactions containing non-financial content like Ordinals inscriptions and Runes tokens. Dashjr and Knots supporters argue that the v30 update’s relaxation of OP_RETURN data storage limits could incentivize spam and undermine Bitcoin’s monetary integrity. “The only ones proposing hardforks are Core30 apologists,” Dashjr stated, framing the opposition to v30 as a defense of Bitcoin’s core principlesBTC News: Hard Fork Chatter Disputed - CoinDesk^[2].

Senior Bitcoin developer Adam Back, a vocal critic of the alleged hard fork proposal, noted that Dashjr’s mining pool, OCEAN, had reportedly reached out to other pools to encourage legal moderation of blockchain content. Back’s comments, however, were disputed by Dashjr, who accused him of misrepresenting the context of the messages. TheRage’s article, which presented screenshots of the leaked messages, faced skepticism for omitting broader context and focusing on hypothetical scenarios rather than concrete plans. Dashjr reiterated that the discussions were theoretical and did not constitute a commitment to a hard forkDid Luke Dashjr really plan a Bitcoin hard fork?^[3].

The controversy has drawn sharp reactions from within the Bitcoin community. Udi Wertheimer, co-founder of the Ordinals project Taproot Wizards, dismissed the report as a “hit piece,” defending Dashjr against allegations of advocating censorship. Wertheimer argued that the leaked messages referenced a hypothetical use of zero-knowledge proofs to filter spam without altering the blockchain’s immutability, a proposal he described as a “nothing burger” with no realistic implementation pathLuke Dashjr’s Hardfork Proposal to “Save Bitcoin” Sparks Debate^[4]. Meanwhile, critics of Dashjr’s stance warn that any hard fork granting a multisig committee authority to retroactively alter the blockchain could compromise Bitcoin’s censorship-resistant design, potentially opening the door to regulatory overreachBitcoin Core vs Knots: Debate Intensifies Over Network Direction^[5].

As the debate unfolds, the Bitcoin network’s node distribution has shifted, with Knots nodes now accounting for approximately 17% of the network. This growth reflects growing support for Dashjr’s anti-spam policies but also raises concerns about potential fragmentation. Dashjr has highlighted the risks of declining full node adoption, warning that Bitcoin’s survival depends on at least 85% of economic activity being processed by nodes rather than relying on centralized servicesThe battle between Bitcoin Core vs Knots is getting …^[6]. The outcome of the v30 update and the broader governance debate could shape Bitcoin’s trajectory, balancing innovation in data use against the need to preserve its decentralized, permissionless nature.