What does the community think about the possibility of Bitcoin branching?

A series of messages stemming from Luke Dashjr, Bitcoin Knots and marine maintenance of pools has shaken up debates about the future of the network.

These leaked conversations are seen investigating the possibility of hard forks (hard forks) incorporating committees with power. Eliminate data that is deemed illegal in your network.

The revelation didn’t take long Lighting up the Bitconnor communityhere, voices intersecting the idea as a direct attack on Bitcoin and others suggesting that DashJR’s intentions are misunderstood.

Initial Reactions: Reliability and Discussion of Range

The developer known as Callebtc said the capture was real.

Many people directly asked Luke if the catch was authentic and if those messages were written by him. He did not deny it. I have checked the materials independently and am absolutely certain that it is not manipulated. His plan is Folk.

Callebtc, Bitcoin developer.

However, Cryptootics has notified that Luke Dashjr has effectively issued an X answer. I refused to propose a hard fork.

Meanwhile, Blockstream co-founder Adam Back pointed out the situation revealed in the filtered chat.

Before this article on Rage, I had already heard about some contacts that Ocean is contacting legal theory and pool to push moderate content with his advisor. It appears to be connected and worse in the context of Luke Dashjr’s filtered chat.

Adam Back, BlockStream CO Founder.

Additionally, CalleBTC agreed to imply any suspected intentions to contact DashJR’s mining pool.

This is more worrying than Luke’s hard folk fantasy. Write your pool and a public letter in Bitcoin’s “Authorized Data Storage.” He admitted this in a leaked message. Craiglight level madness. Ocean and he are an attack on Bitcoin.

Callebtc, Bitcoin developer.

According to Callebtc, Luke would have confirmed his connection to the pool, but the filtered chat reviews aren’t clear about the contact or how it was made. In that way, what is said by this developer and Adam Back comes from the information they process and their interpretations.

What Callebtc and Back discuss here are possible attempts to forward technical discussions Towards legal and regulatory lands.

“Contact pools” with legal debate (a platform that group grouping computing power) means that certain types of transactions need to be filtered or mitigated. In this case, it is linked to “authorized data storage.”

Such a thing would be a fundamental change in Bitcoin architecture: pool They stop acting as neutral validators Of the blocks that are converted into actors with censorship capabilities, it violates the principle that the network processes transactions without discriminating against content.

In turn, I went back and insisted:

The chat is authentic, but he continues to refuse. But be aware that he did not say yes to his authenticity. Before Luke took the lead. In 2020, he responded with a “liar” to similar accusations and erased the tweet.

Adam Back, BlockStream CO Founder.

Diverse interpretations in the Bitcoin community

However, other actors believe that the article revealing the message is enhancing Dashjr’s intentions.

In this article, Udi Wertheimer, internal customer support at Taproot Wizards, said: «I read an article about Luke Dashjr. That’s wrong. Basically, the entire article is wrong. I’m not by his side (from Luke), but this is low quality propaganda ».

According to Wertheimer, the message does not explain retrospective changes to the network, but rather explains the virtual mechanism of the knot node Do not avoid downloading transactions that are considered “spam” It’s already in the block.

The idea was that you could sync your Knot clients late, for example for an hour, and then browse the server if there was “spam” in that block. That server responds with knowledge tests of affected transactions and zeros, demonstrating that these transactions are valid without ejecting them. Therefore, the node continues to function without storing unnecessary data.

Udi Wertheimer, internal customer support for Taproot Wizard.

But not everyone shares that vision. The Mempool.space developer known as Mononaut is even thinking about a proposed scheme in which Luke’s leak is true and the committee will eliminate data that is deemed illegal in the network.

About that scheme, he assured me that It implies trust in the external committee:

Nodes using this software should trust the MultiSIG committee to avoid holding blocks or declaring invalidity. This will separate the smallest of knot nodes from the main chain.

Mononaut, Mempool Developer.space.

Press and background

The journalist and author, known in X as L0lal33TZ (possible author of the article), works in a medium that published private chats that spread the message.

In the leaked message, Luke Dashjr proposes a hard fork of Bitcoin to implement a trust committee that can change blockchain data. All related messages are in the article and make sure everyone reads them. This proposal is an attack on Bitcoin.

L0lal33TZ, journalist and writer.

On his part, developer Eric Wall focused on semantics. He asserted, “Confusion with Luke occurs many times because he uses his vocabulary on certain conditions.”

In that sense, he recalls what Luke said in 2018: “More generally, hard forks (as they occur) don’t necessarily need blocks that violate the old rules…”.

Finally, educators and biggest bitcoiner Giacomo Zucco also questioned the focus of the memo.

Clear distortion. Luke has a very specific definition of “hard fork,” a consensus change everyone agrees about, and that’s why there’s no splitting of the network or creating new tokens.

Giacomo Zucco, Director De Planb Network.

The controversy over DashJR reveals deep tensions within Bitcoin. How much software has been changed, filtering unwanted information, what are the limitations on safety and censorship, how broad is the definition of hard fork.