Important collection restaurants
What is the Bitcoin Hard Fork proposal from Luke Dashjr about?
It is about giving a trusted committee authority to censor and replace blockchain data that are considered illegal.
Why is this proposal controversial for the Bitcoin community?
It threatens the core value of Bitcoin of censorship resistance and blockchain -changing.
Bitcoin [BTC] is central to new drama.
A leaked conversation has revealed that developer Luke Dashjr may consider a hard fork that could give a trusted committee the authority to censor data about the blockchain. This is an idea that the core of Bitcoin’s promise of censorship resistance allows.
This is what you need to know!
Bitcoin censorship back in the spotlight
Dashjr, maintenance of the Bitcoin button client, is considering a drastic step. It is a hard fork that would give a trusted multisig committee authority to change blockchain data with retroactive effect. The goal explained is to remove sexual abuse of children (CSAM) and other non-monetary data such as ordinals and runes, content that some in the community have long labeled ‘spam’.
This proposal is the latest development in the constant feud between Bitcoin buttons and Bitcoin Core developers. The dispute dates from earlier debates about dealing with non-monetary transactions.
Core investigated the adjustment of the Op_Return size to limit harmful data storage, while buttons took a stricter position and filtered such transactions from the mempool. In the course of time, the discussion of concern about blockchain “Rommel” to the much more serious argument or nodes have escalated the risk of organizing illegal content.
Why this Bitcoin could change forever
Dashjr’s idea Allegedly concerned Creating a multisig quorum, essentially a trusted committee with the authority to remove and remove data that is illegally considered.
In practice, this would mean that transactions such as CSAM can be stripped and replaced by a zero knowledge-resistant, so that the transaction remains valid while the stored data of the chain is changed.
Source: X
In one exchange, Dashjr argued about it,
“At the moment the only options would die Bitcoin or we should trust someone.”
Needless to say that this raises some big questions for the future of Bitcoin. By leaving each group with retroactive effect blockchain data with retroactive effect, the permissionless, censors-resistant foundation the network would have been built.
NODE operators can also run legal risks if they do not comply with the requirements of the removal, which is effectively forced in a compliance role. It could create a dangerously precedent, which makes way for a wider censorship of transactions under KYC/AML rules.