On September 25th, Medium spread private messages from Luke Dashul, Bitcoin Knot Maintenance and Pool Ocean. The developer said “we are considering a stiff fork to implement a multi-sig trust committee that can retroactively modify the blockchain to eliminate illegal content.”
According to the publication, Dashjr would have admitted that the current strategy of “monitoring Mempool” was not sufficient. To prevent nodes from storing CSAM materials (Child sexual abuse materialor child sexual abuse material).
This type of content is very little on the network, but has become part of the technical debate for the possibility of inserting oneself. Transaction Attachments.
The report details that the proposal implies a change in the Bitcoin consensus. Specifically, a MultiSIG committee will be established with the ability to confirm transactions and replace data identified as CSAM with zero knowledge tests (zero knowledge proof, ZKP).
This way, the node operator can be Eliminate device content At the same time, it maintains the encryption validity of affected transactions.
One message stemming from DashJR reads, “Now the only option is that Bitcoin dies or you have to trust someone.”
Its location exposed by the environment in question is to distance yourself from the principles of invariance that characterize the network. Introduces a retrospective censorship mechanism It is managed by a small group of participants.
What does Luke Dashul think about Bitcoin fork?
A few hours before the article was published, DashJr wondered if a fork of Bitcoin was needed in an X survey, saying: «If there is support from the community, forks are not needed. If you don’t have it, the fork is not possible».
It does not seem to rule out 100% of the possibility of forks, but the statement contradicts what is published by the media.
On their social networks, Dashjr refused to file accusations And he denied raising a hard fork. “The truth is that I’m not proposing hard forks or anything like that, and these bad actors just try to slander me and undermine my efforts to save Bitcoin again,” he wrote in X’s thread.
He also responded directly to media publications and accused him of misrepresenting his position: “To end it is not fitted with producing ‘what Luke thinks’ and honestly expressing what I really think (often controversial).
In another publication, he described the report as “fake news of honor and loss,” saying his true purpose was to “beat the core30 attacks by spreading awareness so that no one updates that version.”
He warned that to put Bitcoin into the hands of critics, the network would “have no longer existed once Core30 transformed it into a platform for sharing CSAM files.”
The concept of hard branching in Bitcoin causes a high range of technical and political implications.
As explained by Cryptonoticia, the situation It doesn’t seem to be nearbyDisputes between Knot Client Defenders may change stages if conflicts grow between those that are core.
Hard forks are a change in the rules of consensus that divides the network between those adopting the new standard and those staying in the previous version, which could lead to two different chains.
In this case, the point under discussion is whether an authorized entity is required to retrospectively modify the network.
(tagstotranslate)bitcoin(btc)
