**New Bitcoin Improvement Proposal Sparks Controversy Over Legal Warning Clause**
A new Bitcoin improvement proposal (BIP) for a soft fork, created by core developer Luke Dashjr, has ignited outrage on X due to a section that some interpret as threatening legal consequences for those who reject the fork.
The proposal, published on Friday, is the latest development in the ongoing debate between Bitcoin Core and Knots. This debate centers on the question of what Bitcoin should be used for and whether non-financial transactions should be filtered out. Dashjr’s proposal aims to restrict data in Bitcoin (BTC) transactions through a one-year soft fork, serving as a temporary solution while a more permanent fix is developed.
This move addresses growing concerns that bad actors can embed illegal and immoral content into the blockchain following the Bitcoin Core v30 update, which allows much larger onchain data payloads. However, controversy stems from a passage in the proposal: on line 261, the developers note that “there is a moral and legal impediment to any attempt to reject this soft fork.”
Further along, between lines 270 and 272, the proposal states:
“Rejecting this soft fork may subject you to legal or moral consequences, or could result in you splitting off to a new altcoin like Bcash. However, strictly speaking, you are free to choose.”
Many users perceive this wording as a legal threat, clashing with Bitcoin’s foundational ethos. Bitcoin, the world’s first cryptocurrency, was designed to disrupt traditional financial institutions and empower individuals, with permissionless use as a core principle. Critics argue that any form of censorship or restriction on data size undermines this fundamental freedom.
### Community Reactions: “Orwellian” and An Attack on Bitcoin
On Sunday, a user known as Bam, founder of a Bitcoin education resource and systems engineer, described the wording as “Orwellian,” referencing George Orwell’s dystopian novel *1984.*
Ben Kaufman, a coder and software engineer, condemned the proposal stating that a “fork under the threat of legal consequences is the most clear case of an attack on Bitcoin.”
Canadian cryptographer and computer scientist Peter Todd also chimed in, sharing a screenshot of Dashjr’s proposal and commenting, “It’s clear he expects his soft-fork to get adopted due to legal threats.”
Alex Thorn of Galaxy Digital echoed Todd’s sentiment, calling the proposal “explicitly an attack on Bitcoin” while adding, “however, it’s also incredibly stupid.”
Some community members caution that if miners and users split over the activation of this soft fork, the Bitcoin network could face a potentially dangerous chain split.
### Possible Misinterpretations and Clarifications
Others argue the contentious language has been misunderstood. Users have long been able to embed messages onchain, and with the Bitcoin Core v30 update allowing much larger data payloads, the proposal’s primary concern is that network participants might face criminal liability if illegal content is embedded in transactions.
Some X users suggest that the “legal or moral consequences” phrase refers specifically to the liability arising from failing to adopt the fork, which would allow illicit content to persist on the blockchain.
Dashjr himself appeared to support this interpretation in response to a user claiming it’s illegal to reject the soft fork. He clarified, “It doesn’t say that. Maybe you can propose a clarification if you think it’s unclear.”
He added, “May isn’t certainly. Also, for some context, I believe this part originated in an earlier draft, which didn’t have the proactive activation (i.e., the opposing chain would definitely include CSAM) so it would probably make sense to add clarification.”
### Soft Fork Might Be Less Impactful Than Expected
The soft fork proposal is reportedly progressing smoothly, with no technical objections to date, according to Dashjr.
However, Peter Todd may have already uncovered a potential loophole. He claims to have recorded a transaction containing the entire text of the proposed fork that is “100% standard and fully compatible” with the improvement proposal, suggesting that the fix might be circumvented.
Meanwhile, BitMEX Research warned that a malicious actor could exploit the situation by embedding illegal content onchain to “trigger a re-org and succeed with their attack,” thereby creating an economic incentive to post unlawful content on the blockchain.
—
The controversy highlights ongoing tensions within the Bitcoin community about censorship, network upgrades, and the balance between legal compliance and the permissionless nature of the protocol. As discussions continue, clarity and consensus will be crucial to maintain Bitcoin’s integrity and independence.
https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-soft-fork-luke-dashjr-legal-threat-debate?utm_source=rss_feed&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_partner_inbound
