The Bitcoin community is blocked again in a heated debate following the relationships according to which the developer Luke Dashjr, creator of the Bitcoin Knots customer, is exploring the possibility of a difficult fork to remove illegal data from the blockchain.
At the center of the dispute there are leaked discussions that suggest that Dashjr has considered a framework in which a selected quorum of signatories could retroactively draw up the blockchain voices using zero -knowledge tests (ZKPS).
The goal, according to these relationships, would be to filter the non -financial or illegal non -financial data incorporated in the Bitcoin’s immutable book, preserving the chronology of valid transactions.
What is the problem? A radical departure from Orthodoxy Bitcoin
Bitcoin’s design has always been based on resistance to immutability and censorship, the principles sanctioned by the Genesis block of Satoshi Nakamoto. The proposals to alter the historical blocks challenge orthodoxy frontally.
Dashjr has the knots positioned for a long time as more rigorous than Bitcoin Core as regards “spam” transactions, claiming that existing node filters are unable to face the growing problem of illegal content.
According to reports, in private messages shared with anger, it is mentioned saying: “At this moment the only options would be died of bitcoin or we have to trust someone … ZKP is severely better”.
The fork that is said to replace the blockchain items marked with Zkps, preserving the mathematical tests of validity while canceling the underlying data.
Supporters frame him as a legal shield for Bitcoin’s survival. Critics see him as the introduction of a editorial committee, a small group with the power to rewrite history.
DISCOVER: Best Mogine Meme ICO to invest in 2025
How are Bitcoiner reacting? Reactions of the divided sector
Reports divided the veterans developers of Bitcoin and the wider community. Adam Back, CEO of Blockstream and an eminent cryptographer, claimed to be aware of the sector discussions on the company pressure on the extraction pools of moderate content.
He warned that Dashjr’s proposal risks “jumping directly to censorship technology”.
While Dashjr denied the accuracy of the story, Back insists that the leaked messages are authentic. That contradiction has only added to the confusion, with some who claim that even the idea threatens the trust in the governance of Bitcoin.
Critics argue that enhancing a group selected to draw up the data would introduce risks of centralization and expose the operators of the node to legal liability.
Others also question the technical feasibility of distributing this fork without consent for fracture, drawing parallels with the 2017 Bitcoin cash division that has divided the network for years.
The debate is also unleashing the removation of Dashjr’s wheelchair hate through Crypto Twitter while critics capitalize the narrative to land personal punches.
Unpopular opinion:
Luke Dashjr is a poisonous actor who has made his best to attack Bitcoin since his bad security practices made him lose more than 200 BTCs.
Gavin Andresen; The person Satoshi trusted 2011, saying that Bitcoin was “in good hands” with him; Already recognized … pic.twitter.com/lsucs08ync
– said Nassar (@the_nassar) September 24, 2025
DISCOVER: 9+ Best Memecoins to be purchased in 2025
The debate Op_retururn is back: an old fight with new places
The controversy is the latest escalation of the Op_return debate, which began years ago when users started to incorporate non -monetary data, ranging from memes to copyright protected files, in bitcoin blocks. Although often trivial, the problem has gained weight while accusations of illegal material emerged.
Knots left DataCarrier where it was and updated so that it could also limit the data that exploit the TaProot bug rather than only op_retururn.
Core Left It Broken, is expanding it by 1000x and will remove the user’s configurability in a future version.
The knots refuses arbitrary data …
– Mechanic #fixthefilters #300kb (@GrassfedBitcoin) September 16, 2025
For some, reputational risk is a sufficient reason to consider censorship technology. For others, compromising the risks of immutability by destroying Bitcoin’s identity itself.
For now, the hard fork that is said remains speculative. But the intensity of the reaction highlights a growing philosophical division: should Bitcoin remain an untouchable master book at all costs or adapt to external pressures that threaten his long -term vitality?
The result may depend on Dashjr’s Knots client, but on the fact that the wider bitcoin ecosystem accepts a compromise for its basic principles.
If the story is a guide, the consensus will be difficult and the threat of another divided chain looms in the background.
DISCOVER: Best Mogine Meme ICO to invest in 2025
Join 99 bitcoins news discord here for the latest market updates
The Post Bitcoin Hard Fork Sparks arouses a ferocious debate on censorship and consent appeared first out of 99 bitcoins.