Vitalik Buterin has delved into Bitcoin’s long-running dispute over “spam” policy and node software philosophy, amplifying a scathing article by Bitcoin developer Gregory Maxwell that frames the controversy as a clash between open, market-driven neutrality and what he calls populist calls for censorship. “Greg Maxwell defends a principled commitment to freedom and open market-based resource allocation against the populist desire to censor the current hated thing,” Buterin wrote on
Buterin Takes a Stand: Supports Bitcoin Core
The immediate spark was a new post from Maxwell, posted “Today at 6:40:27 PM” on Bitcointalk, in response to pressure on Bitcoin Core maintainers to ship code perceived to filter or degrade disfavored transaction types. Maxwell argues that Bitcoin Core’s position, “going back to Satoshi, AFAICT,” is that “Bitcoin is a system secured by economics and self-interest.” In his view, the proposals associated with Bitcoin Knots and its advocates amount to building “weapons that can be used against Bitcoin,” a direction he insists major contributors will not take.
Maxwell’s message spares no effort on the substance and tone of the current desire to limit chain activity. “The knotty vision of Bitcoin seems to be a system (in)secured by altruistic hope and populist theocracy – by cancel culture and banning paper straw,” he writes, adding that such campaigns “are very popular on social media and (I expect) to fail big in the real world.”
He acknowledges the widespread distaste among Core regulars for “NFT/shitcoin traffic,” but asserts that the commitment to permissionless use must trump aesthetic preferences: “Core’s commitment to individual liberty, self-determination, and related principles is great enough that they recognize that unnecessary or mindless traffic is the cost of an open system, and that small improvements Speculative speculation related to “spam” is not worth risking the properties that underpin Bitcoin’s entire reason for existence. existence.”
The common thread in Maxwell’s argument is that the project should not pander to “would-be censors” simply because they are “loud and obnoxious,” deploy legal threats, or invite government action. Instead, contributors will “circumvent them by using and improving Bitcoin as they would any other attacker’s weapons.”
He emphasizes that Bitcoin Core is not a provider optimizing for customers, but a group building a network that they themselves want to use: “The people who work on Bitcoin are doing it for themselves, to create and protect a system that they want to use. They are not making a product for customers… Everyone is welcome to share in the benefits of their work if you want what they have created, of course. But they are not going to go against their own interests in an open system secured by economics and resistant to human influence due to popularity. outcry. »
This phrase “not a product for customers” quickly became a hot spot. “Everyone who runs Core IS a customer. This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever read,” objected X user BaconBitz. Buterin, who had discussed the exchange earlier, pushed back against this frame with a terse aesthetic defense: “No, this is a paragraph written by someone who understands that good protocol is a work of art.”
Maxwell also links the current unrest to a broader cultural backlash against the popularity of blockchain experiences. In his article, he argues that “filter fundamentalism is a thing” largely because of the “popular success of NFT/shitcoin bullshit,” and makes an aside about Luke Dashjr’s long-standing advocacy of what Maxwell calls “personal transaction morality policing.”
In a typically caustic tone, he suggests that advocacy has recently “gained some traction,” not only due to changes in sentiment but also funding dynamics, alleging “that he received millions in charitable investments after becoming an involuntary non-coiner, and that he can now pay people to work with him and promote his positions since few people would previously do so voluntarily.” »
The backdrop to all of this is the practical question of what, if anything, Bitcoin Core should do at the code level to accommodate increases in demand for block space resulting from listings, NFTs, or other modes that critics call “spam.” Maxwell’s answer is unequivocal: unauthorized design and economic incentives are the defense, not discretionary filters.
“It’s not news that there is a significant portion of the population who understands ‘I disagree with what you’re saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’ and a significant (and vocal!) portion who either doesn’t understand it or disagrees with it.” With this in mind, he cautions against going “middle ground” with censors and rejects the idea that threats of state action should guide protocol management.
At press time, Bitcoin was trading at $111,567.
Featured image created with DALL.E, chart from TradingView.com
Editorial process as Bitcoinist focuses on providing thoroughly researched, accurate and unbiased content. We follow strict sourcing standards and every page undergoes careful review by our team of top technology experts and seasoned editors. This process ensures the integrity, relevance and value of our content to our readers.
