Bitcoin’s Latest Drama: Fork or Farce? 🤑

by

Ah, Bitcoin, that most fashionable of digital currencies, now finds itself in a tangle of code and controversy. Over the past fortnight, the community has stumbled upon a fresh Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) designed to eradicate what some call “network spam.” In a twist as predictable as a Wildean farce, the proposal hails from an enigmatic pseudonymous developer-because nothing says “trust” like a name that sounds like a character from a spy novel.

Unknown Developer Steers Bitcoin Toward Another Fork Showdown

Bitcoin’s community, ever the dramatics, has once again divided itself over matters of scale and data. But no, not the block size wars of yore-this time, the dispute centers on whether arbitrary, non-financial data should be permitted on the blockchain. One might say the ghost of pseudonymous developers past has returned to haunt us.

The crux of the matter? Bitcoin Core version 30 expanded the OP_RETURN data limit from 80 bytes to 100,000 bytes-a move that has left some participants howling with delight and others howling for a soft fork. Some have even embraced the Knots software, which lets nodes filter transactions like a Victorian hostess vetting guests at a ball. Meanwhile, a proposal-covered in October-seeks to banish certain data types via consensus. The architect? A figure known only as “Dathon Ohm,” a name that whispers of pseudonymity and intrigue.

Beyond the pseudonym, we know little-though Dathon Ohm does maintain a Github and a X account, where they engage critics with the enthusiasm of a Victorian poet debating meter. Some speculate Ohm is Luke Dashjr in disguise, but he himself claims: “Dathon took an idea I had and turned it into BIP444.” One suspects a Shakespearean rivalry is brewing.

This strategy, of course, bears a striking resemblance to the 2017 UASF campaign-a rehash of 2017’s UASF fiasco, but with more OP_RETURN data and fewer block size battles. Back then, a shadowy figure named Shaolinfry introduced a framework for soft forks, relying on block heights rather than timestamps. The UASF design, with its lockinontimeout flag, was as elegant as a Wildean epigram: “Preserve backward compatibility, but activate at a predetermined height even without miner consensus. How very modern.”

The UASF gained traction when Segwit was pushed through, much like a Wildean plot twist. Nodes were set to activate Segwit on Aug. 1, 2017, with or without miners-but miners, ever the pragmatists, activated it via BIP-91 instead. Thus, the UASF became a footnote, like a forgotten lover in a tragic monologue.

Bitcoin may now face a similar crossroads. The number of Knots nodes has risen to 4,654 out of 23,282 public nodes, suggesting some favor Ohm’s proposal. Yet 79.80% still cling to Bitcoin Core. One might say the network is a society ballroom: half dancing to a new waltz, the other half refusing to budge.

The debated Bitcoin Core version 30, now the network’s top client, shows no issue with the OP_RETURN data limit. But if momentum builds, we may witness another defining chapter in Bitcoin’s saga-complete with drama, intrigue, and perhaps a villain or two. Whether it culminates in a fork or a farce remains to be seen, but the stage is set for a performance worthy of the Savoy Theatre.

FAQ ❓

  • What is the new Bitcoin soft fork proposal about? It aims to restrict certain non-financial data on the blockchain through consensus-level rules. A valiant attempt to impose order on chaos, or a bureaucratic nightmare? You decide.
  • Who is behind the proposal? The architect is a pseudonymous developer known as Dathon Ohm, whose identity remains as elusive as a Wildean hero’s true love.
  • Why is the community divided? The debate centers on whether large OP_RETURN data use should remain permissible. Some argue it’s a noble quest to cleanse the blockchain of data dross; others see it as a bureaucratic overreach that would leave even Kafka nodding in approval.
  • How does this relate to past UASF efforts? The strategy mirrors the 2017 UASF model, drawing comparisons to the earlier campaign led by the pseudonymous Shaolinfry. History, they say, repeats itself-but with better hashtags.

Read More

2025-11-15 01:18