Let’s do a quick thought experiment. Imagine a government becomes opposed to how certain people are using Bitcoin. In response, it establishes its own Bitcoin node software, launches a mining pool, and introduces a soft fork—claiming that anyone who resists this fork is supporting illegal activity. Would you support this soft fork?

Replies (40)

Remember the 14 years when people celebrated how bitcoins legal status was grey (at best)
I’m here for separation of money and State. So, in short, “No”. That would be time for men to be courageous outlaws.
Good luck getting the rest of the world (outside their jurisdiction) to agree to those terms
If I thought the fork was a net benefit then yes, regardless of who is proposing it. If not, then no. Of course, if its a government trying to force it then its almost certainly not good. However, if its a voluntary thing, where people can choose for themselves, then I'm all for that.
MadMaxi's avatar
MadMaxi 2 months ago
User Rejected Softfork is an as-of-yet misunderstood aspect of #Bitcoin Game Theory 🤔
BTC_P2P's avatar
BTC_P2P 2 months ago
But they’re saving Bitcoin 😂😂
Judge Hardcase's avatar
Judge Hardcase 2 months ago
Depends if I agree the fork is better for Bitcoin or not. Period. Who wrote the software and what their legal opinions may be do not factor into my decision.
Then they wouldn't understand the basics of bitcoin, a peer to peer electronic cash system. PEER TO PEER No government No bank No central authority They cannot declare something illegal that they have no access to. Now, go to your favourite coffeeshop and talk them into accepting bitcoin. 🟠
I run knots because i hate core, but tell me if CSAM has been uploaded to the chain yet? Nothing burger! This issue needs to be spearheaded at the miner level and not the node level.
Default avatar
ihsotas 2 months ago
Nope. I would imagine any such shitcoiners would be rejected by the main economic actors since violating the fundamental usecase of bitcoin makes the network worthless.
Bob Social, 's avatar
Bob Social, 2 months ago
😯Support soft fork? Oooo... HELL NO 😑 😶😶😶
BitcoinIsFuture's avatar
BitcoinIsFuture 2 months ago
Let’s do a quick thought experiment. Imagine a government wants to attack Bitcoin. What could they do? They can compromised a number of developers. The developers could start slowly degrading Bitcoin. They could change the definition of Bitcoin being "digital currency that uses peer-to-peer technology" to just be a "peer-to-peer network". They could change the definition of the datacarriersize. Using that as argument they could deny fixing the inscriptions spam. Then they could use the inscriptions spam as an argument that spam is unstoppable so they better blow up OP_RETURN and invite even more spam. Just like BSV did after which someone uploaded CSAM to the BSV blockchain.
Junghwan's avatar
Junghwan 2 months ago
The point is that Bitcoin is money not data storage. Core 30 brings BS and we should do
That's a tough one. First, let me state that I will never upgrade to v30. I'll keep my old node has long as it works. If need be, I'll switch to whatever other implementation is possible at that time. Second, if the kind of content you mentioned makes it into op_return, I think I will : 1. make my node private, 2. have a new node that will be pruned to keep as little data as possible and have that be the public-facing node (again, as long as it's a previous version of Core or it's Knots), and 3. configure my private node (1) to only connect to my pruned node. I might also consider a satellite node, so it never connects to anyone else. Hopefully, some third implementation comes along. If the kind of bad content you mentioned makes it into op_return and if neither older versions of Core nor Knots work, and if we don't get a third implementation, I'll stop running a node. That the Core team got it that bad, and then doubled-down, really shook my faith in the project. I felt spiritual clarity during the blocksize war and the bcash fork. This is different. That both Greg Maxwell and Adam Back seem to have lost the plot is very concerning. I never trusted Newberry since I saw him drop a pen during a presentation and not pick it up again. Someone who is not autistic enough to feel like he must pick up the pen that he dropped, shouldn't be touching the code for the monetary system of all of humanity. I also don't trust his underlings. I still want to believe that bitcoin is "manifest destiny", that Bitcoin is destined to be humanity's best weapon against the dystopia that the Parasites are pushing on us. That bitcoin is the fire from Prometheus. I used to feel that, but with these events, this belief has been shaken and is now only a hope. @ODELL @BTC Sessions #bitcoin #btc #node #core #knots
No, I would not. Now, let's do another thought experiment: Imagine the Core team decides to radically change bitcoin into a piece of software that openly states that it welcomes any non-monetary-transaction-content, legal or illegal, and will relay it. They decide to call it v30. Would you run v30? Is that the hill you choose?
Default avatar
p 2 months ago
**** This just in.. pedoland under 'pedo software' "crisis" **** The U.S. is the only UN member state that has not yet ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. As of July 2025, child marriage is legal in 34 states.