Vitalik Buterin weighed in on Bitcoin’s long-running debate over its “spam” policy and node software philosophy, amplifying a fiery post from Bitcoin developer Gregory Maxwell that cast the debate as a clash between open, market-driven neutrality and what he calls populist demands for censorship. “Greg Maxwell is defending a principled commitment to freedom and open market-based resource allocation against populist desires to censor what is currently hated,” Buterin wrote in X, tweeting a quote from BitMEX Research’s summary of the “fighting talk” in the “Core vs. Notts” debate.
Buterin’s stance: Supports Bitcoin Core
The immediate trigger was a new message from Maxwell posted on Bitcointalk “today at 6:40:27 p.m.” in response to pressure on Bitcoin Core maintainers to ship code deemed to filter or degrade objectionable transaction types. Maxwell argues that Bitcoin Core’s position “dates back to Satoshi as far as I know” and that “Bitcoin is a system secured by economics and self-interest.” According to him, the proposals associated with Bitcoin Knot and its supporters amount to building “weapons that can be used against Bitcoin,” and he argues that core contributors will not go in that direction.
Maxwell’s post is inexorable in both the content and tone of the current push to limit on-chain activity. “Bitcoin’s vision of Knot seems to be a system kept safe by a theocracy of altruistic hope and populism, like cancel culture and banning paper straws,” he wrote, adding that such campaigns would be “hugely popular on social media and (I predict) a huge failure in the real world.”
He acknowledges that there is a widespread distaste for “NFT/fucking coin traffic” among core regulars, but says that commitment to unauthorized use must override aesthetic preferences. “Our core commitment to individual freedom, self-determination, and related principles is great enough that we recognize that some wasteful or stupid traffic is a cost of an open system, and that small speculative improvements related to “spam” are not worth risking the underlying properties of Bitcoin’s entire raison d’être. ”
The gist of Maxwell’s argument is that projects shouldn’t yield to “potential censors,” issue legal threats, or invite government action just because they’re “loud and obnoxious.” Instead, contributors will “avoid attacks by using and improving Bitcoin just as they would use any other attacker’s weapon.”
He emphasized that Bitcoin Core is not a vendor optimizing for its customers, but a group that builds the networks that the customers themselves want to use: “The people working on Bitcoin are doing it for themselves, to create and protect the systems they want to use. They create products for their customers. “They’re not going to work against their interests in an open system that’s protected by economics and that’s resistant to human influence because it’s popular.” Protest. ”
This statement that “this is not a customer-facing product” quickly became a flashpoint. “Everyone running Core is a customer. This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever read,” retorted X user BaconBitz. Mr. Buterin, who had earlier brought up the exchange, pushed back on that framework with a succinct aesthetic defense: “No, this is written by someone who understands that good protocols are works of art.”
Maxwell also links today’s unrest to a broader cultural reaction to the popularity of on-chain experimentation. In his post, he claims that “filter fundamentalism just doesn’t exist” in large part because of “the popular success of NFT/shitcoin shit,” and offers a pointed aside about Luke Dash Jr.’s longstanding defense of what Maxwell characterizes as the “personal transaction morality police.”
In a characteristically acerbic manner, he suggested that advocacy has “gained a little bit of traction” recently, driven not only by shifts in sentiment but also by financial resources, arguing that “after becoming an involuntary non-coinist, you were handed millions of dollars in philanthropic investments, whereas before very few people would do it voluntarily, and now you can pay people to work with you to promote your position.”
Behind all of this is the practical question of what Bitcoin Core should do at the code level to deal with the surge in demand for block space caused by Inscriptions, NFTs, or other fads that critics call “spam.” Maxwell’s answer is clear. Permissive design and financial incentives are defenses, not discretionary filters.
“It is nothing new that while a significant portion of the population understands ‘I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,’ there is a significant (and vocal!) segment of the population that does not understand or does not agree with it.” In that spirit, he warns censors against responding “half-heartedly” and rejects the idea that the threat of state action should dictate the direction of protocol management.
At the time of writing, Bitcoin was trading at $111,567.
Featured image created with DALL.E, chart on TradingView.com
editing process for is focused on providing thoroughly researched, accurate, and unbiased content. We adhere to strict sourcing standards, and each page is carefully reviewed by our team of top technology experts and experienced editors. This process ensures the integrity, relevance, and value of your content to your readers.
