Running Bitcoin Is Illegal: Dashjr Chainsplit Proposal Hits BIP Repository
A pseudonymous developer credits Bitcoin Knots maintainer Luke Dashjr for a softfork proposal that could split the Bitcoin blockchain, claiming Bitcoin Core exposes users to legal risks.
In September, we reported on Signal messages leaked to The Rage showing Bitcoin Knots maintainer Luke Dashjr discussing a hardfork to combat alleged child sexually abusive material (CSAM) on the blockchain.
The statements contained in the messages were threefold: first, Dashjr proposed a hardfork that would allow Knots clients to accept zero-knowledge blocks, second, Dashjr proposed a "trusted committee" to evaluate what data should be replaced with zero-knowledge proofs, and third, the messages showed Dashjr discussing potential legal action against miners who support Bitcoin as a "sanctioned data storage".
As Blockstream CEO Adam Back stated in response to our reporting, Dashjr's "Ocean was contacting pools with legal theories to try push their corporate counsel into moderating content."
Now a proposal for a softfork was published on the Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIP) repository by a pseudonymous developer, crediting Dashjr for the original proposal. The proposal aims to restrict the transmission of non-monetary data, described as "spam," which the author claims to have legal implications for node operators.
The author's Github account was created a day prior to its posting on the mailinglist. The BIP was assigned BIP-Number 444 by Dashjr shortly after publication. The BIP has since been marked as "too heated" and consequently locked by Core developers, limiting the discussion to contributors.
L0la L33tz
A Potentially Temporary Softfork
The softfork proposal aims to invalidate scriptPubKeys exceeding 34 bytes and OP_Return to 83 bytes, invalidate certain OP_PUSHDATA with payloads larger than 256 bytes, invalidate certain undefined witness (or Tapleaf) versions and witness stacks with a Taproot annex, invalidate taproot control blocks larger than 257 bytes, invalidate tapscripts including OP_SUCCESS opcodes anywhere, and invalidate tapscripts executing the OP_IF or OP_NOTIF instruction.
The softfork is described as temporary, set to expire in a year "if no further action is taken by you," and means to act as "a targeted intervention to mitigate a specific crisis, not a commitment or proposal of a new direction of development."
The proposal offers two activation methods: a proactive activation, set for a startheight of 934864 (~2026-02-01) with mandatory signaling leading up to activation, and a reactive activation, which proposes "for miners to reject the offending block and immediately activate the new rules [...] in the event of an emergency," in which case "the new rules are effective on the very next block confirmed at the same height as the rejected block."
However, "if this BIP gains consensus and activates, it seems likely that, when it expires, there would be consensus at least for extending the restrictions, if no better solutions are found," the author writes in the discussion. Dashjr protege Bitcoin Mechanic additionally notes that the softfork "can be extended/made permanent if not proven undesirable during the temporary period."
"No Time For Careful Deployment"
"The recent release of Bitcoin Core 30 presents a severe threat to Bitcoin's viability," the author writes. Referring to the removal of OP_Return limits, CoreV30 "proposes to redefine this behavior from an abuse of the system into a supported use case. The true danger lies not merely in the release existing, but in its adoption. The adoption of this release, even if by a minority of users, risks establishing this harmful redefinition as a new de facto standard for the entire network," the author claims.
"This official sanction creates an immediate and severe threat," the author continues, that "allows a malicious actor to mine a single transaction with illegal or universally abhorrent content and credibly claim that Bitcoin itself is a system for distributing it, rather than a system that was merely abused" and would result in "legal and moral risks" for node operators.
"If the blockchain contains content that is illegal to possess or distribute, node operators are forced to choose between violating the law (or their conscience) or shutting down their node. This unacceptable dilemma directly undermines the incentive to validate, leading to inevitable centralization and posing an existential threat to Bitcoin's security model," the author concludes.
"Due to the release of Bitcoin Core 30 endorsing large data storage and actual illegal content being mined [...], the network as it stands is already contaminated. This is not a preemptive measure, but an emergency response to an immediate crisis. Therefore, there is no time for lengthy signaling periods or careful deployment; the only remaining option is immediate and retroactive activation to mitigate the harm."
"The best way to call the authority of Bitcoin Core 30 into question is to move quickly to explicitly softfork in order to distance ourselves as much as possible from the data storage use case," the author states in the BIP discussion. "The point is not to make an issue (arbitrary illegality making life harder for nodes) worse by engaging in activity we have no business defending (the uploading/downloading/storage of arbitrary data)," Mechanic adds.
"This BIP specifically targets forms of spam that are so legally toxic that having even a single instance in the chain represents a significant legal liability for users who run nodes," the author concludes. "A counter-fork to reject BIP 444 would mean explicitly protecting and enforcing the distribution of child porn," Dashjr adds on X.
A Chainsplit, Lost Coins, and Hardforking Future Upgrades
The author concedes that the published proposal may have major consequences. First, the author highlights that the softfork proposal would cause a chainsplit by design.
As the author writes, "since we are rejecting an already-mined block proposal, this softfork does indeed cause a chain split. In fact, that is an important part of its purpose: to keep the illegal content storage in block out of Bitcoin" with the reactive activation method.
Because "the softfork must activate retroactively, invalidating that block and all its descendants. The prior segment of the blockchain including this block will eventually (hopefully quickly) be discarded entirely, as the network adopts the softfork proposed herein."
The author concedes that "there is potential for significant disruption in the short-term," noting that "any econonomic node that continues to process deposits or payments should consider the risk of reversals or double-spending until the situation has fully resolved." The softfork activation would temporarily halt deposits and withdrawals on exchanges and potentially disrupt Lightning Network usage "until a single, stable chain has been decisively established with significant proof-of-work."
The author further concedes that the softfork would render needed upgradehooks unavailable for other softforks, necessitating a hardfork if further changes are to be made to Bitcoin during the softfork's active period. It would additionally "impede advanced smart contracting like BitVM" which, according to the author, would be just fine to be further developed on testnet.
In response to the risk of losing coins locked in taproot script trees, the author notes that "this proposal in its current form almost certainly will result in funds being at least frozen for a year," adding that "I don't see any easy way around this (other than just loudly warning users to migrate their funds ASAP)."
Independent journalism does not finance itself. If you enjoyed this article, please consider making a donation. If you would like to note a correction to this article, please email corrections@therage.co
