Luke Dashjr’s Radical Hardfork Proposal to ’Save Bitcoin’ Ignites Crypto Civil War

Bitcoin's core developers are drawing battle lines over a controversial hardfork proposal that claims to rescue the network from existential threats.

The Protocol Purist's Gambit

Luke Dashjr's push for a fundamental protocol overhaul splits the community between ideological purity and pragmatic evolution. His blueprint would reconfigure Bitcoin's architectural foundations—a move supporters call necessary surgery while opponents label it reckless heart transplant.

Technical Schism Goes Public

Development channels exploded with technical rebuttals and endorsements as the proposal hit GitHub. The debate exposes deepening fractures between Bitcoin's originalist camp and adaptation-focused developers. Mining pools remain conspicuously silent—calculating profitability impacts behind closed doors.

Echoes of 2017's Hash War

Longtime observers note uncomfortable parallels with the Bitcoin Cash schism. This time, the stakes involve fundamental security assumptions rather than simple block size arguments. Institutional investors monitor the infighting with growing unease—another reminder that crypto governance makes corporate boardrooms look harmonious.

The proposal either fortifies Bitcoin's foundations or opens Pandora's box of competing chains. Either way, the 'digital gold' narrative faces its sternest test since the SegWit showdown.

Background: Bitcoin Knots vs. Bitcoin Core

The disagreement goes back years, rooted in conflicts between supporters of bitcoin Knots and developers of Bitcoin Core. Core had considered increasing the op_return size to prevent non-monetary transactions from using harmful methods, like embedding data in unspendable outputs. 

Bitcoin Knots proponents argue that non-monetary data, initially described as “spam,” has no place on Bitcoin and that Core should not optimize the protocol for such purposes.

To counter “spam,” Bitcoin Knots – maintained by Dashjr, also a Bitcoin CORE contributor,  implements filters that prevent transactions containing non-monetary data from entering a node’s mempool. Over time, this discussion shifted focus from general spam to the more serious issue of CSAM, though technically all nodes must host the same data once blocks are confirmed, making prevention via mempool filters insufficient.

The Proposed Multisig Committee

Leaked messages show Dashjr proposing a multisig quorum system. Under this proposal, a selected group WOULD review transactions containing CSAM and replace the data with zero-knowledge proofs, letting node operators remove the content while still keeping the transactions valid. 

Dashjr notes, “Right now the only options would be Bitcoin dies or we have to trust someone,” acknowledging the plan would require a consensus change and a Bitcoin hardfork.

Additionally, third parties are reportedly drafting public letters in favor of sanctioning illegal content across the Bitcoin network. Dashjr’s team, following legal advice, decided the letters should not appear to come from them.

Implications and Concerns

Experts say the proposal could threaten Bitcoin’s core principle of being permissionless. Giving a committee the ability to change blockchain data could open the door to wider censorship and possibly even regulatory controls, such as Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) requirements.

When asked for comment, Dashjr rejected the reports, saying, “You’re writing an article on completely unfounded lies?” and did not provide any further details.

Ongoing Debate

How to deal with illegal content on Bitcoin remains an open question. Policymakers, miners, and node operators are still debating how to balance network governance, legal compliance, and Bitcoin’s censorship-resistant design.

Also Read: Hyperliquid Community Discusses 45% Supply Burn Proposal