A Cold War Shakes the Heart of the Bitcoin Protocol
For several months, an unprecedented tension has been stirring the hushed world of Bitcoin development.
Behind the lines of code, a real war of vision is being played out: should we keep Bitcoin as a pure and minimalist monetary network, or make one open infrastructure, capable of accommodating all kinds of uses, even controversial ones?
Two camps are now facing each other:
➡️ on one side, Bitcoin Core, the historical and main software of the network,
➡️ on the other, Bitcoin Knots, an alternative version led by the uncompromising developer Luke dashjr (co-founder of the Mining Pool Ocean).
And the key is a fundamental issue: Who decides what “Bitcoin” can be?
Bitcoin Core: Neutrality as a Principle
To understand the crisis, we must first remember that Bitcoin Core is the beating heart of the network.
It is the software that most nodes around the world run, ensuring the validity of transactions and the consistency of the protocol.
But for several years, a debate has been brewing internally: should certain uses of the network, deemed non-monetary, be restricted? Or, on the contrary, should everything be authorized as long as it respects the rules of consensus?
With the release BitcoinCore 30, planned for the end of 2025, the developers have decided to remove the historical limit imposed on the size of the field OP_RETURN, a small area in each transaction where data can be inserted.
Until now, this area was limited to 80 bytes. Tomorrow, it could accommodate much larger data—up to several megabytes.
The objective?
Allow more freedom to application developers and emerging uses, such as registrations
timestampings or some off-chain smart contracts.
In other words, making Bitcoin a neutral foundation where anyone can build — as long as they pay the associated fees.
Luke Dashjr and the return of the “Bitcoin purist”
This decision set the powder keg alight.
At the origin of the sling, a name comes back: Luke dashjr, a historical figure in Bitcoin development, often described as a “protocol maximalist”.
A developer for over a decade, Luke Dashjr created Bitcoin Knots, a forked version of Bitcoin Core, in which it imposes a stricter policy:
- limitation of the OP_RETURN field to 42 bytes,
- filtering of transactions deemed “non-financial” (registrations, images, metadata, etc.),
- and a clear ideological positioning: Bitcoin is not a data store, but a currency.
His argument is simple:
“Block space must remain sacred. If we allow anything and everything to be written there, Bitcoin will become a data dump and lose its monetary nature.”
For its supporters, Knots is a bulwark against the “technophile” drift of Core, which they believe risks transforming Bitcoin into a universal platform like Ethereum.
For its detractors, on the contrary, it is a attempt at ideological censorship, contrary to the spirit of neutrality of Bitcoin.
The debate behind the debate: what do we want to protect?
This technical conflict actually hides a philosophical battle.
There are two opposing visions of Bitcoin's future:
| Bitcoin Core Vision | Bitcoin Knots Vision |
|---|---|
| Bitcoin as a neutral infrastructure: any valid use should be relayed, as long as it pays the fees. | Bitcoin as sovereign currency: only financial transactions have a place in the blockchain. |
| The fee market is the best regulation. | Filtering is necessary to avoid “spam” and preserve decentralization. |
| Open Bitcoin to new uses (timestamping, rollups, digital identity, etc.). | Protect Bitcoin from “pollution” and misappropriation of its memory space. |
At bottom, it's a question of implicit governance.
Bitcoin has no board of directors, no active founder, no formal hierarchy.
But the choice of software implementation that each runs — Core or Knots — becomes a kind of technical vote on the direction to follow.
A fracture visible in the figures
Until recently, Bitcoin Knots was a marginal curiosity, used by a few hundred nodes.
But in 2025, its share exploded: we now have between 10% and 18% public nodes using Knots.
Growth of more than 600% in a few months.
A strong signal, according to Cobra, the pseudonym of the one who maintains Bitcoin.org :"If Core continues to move away from perceived neutrality, Knots could end up becoming the go-to client."
This idea — that a fork The possibility that the main client could supplant the original would have seemed unthinkable a few years ago.
But the discomfort is real.
And some now fear a scenario at the Bitcoin Cash, where a network split would cause chaos, confusion and volatility.
Behind the lines of code, the question of power
What worries many observers is the very nature of the disagreement.
This is not just a technical parameter, but a disagreement on the philosophy of the protocol.
– Core defends freedom of use and neutrality.
– Knots stands for monetary purity and technical discipline.
But behind these postures, another question surfaces within the Bitcoin community: Who really has the power to steer Bitcoin?
- The developers?
- Node operators?
- The minors?
- Or the bitcoiners?
Because if Bitcoin Core remains dominant, its de facto influence on network policy is questionable.
And Knots, by seeking to limit this power, paradoxically presents itself... as another form of centralization around a charismatic and controversial individual.
The risk of a more radical war
Some see this conflict as a repeat of the “bloc war” of 2017:
some advocating flexibility and adaptation, others rigor and continuity.
At the time, the quarrel resulted in the creation of Bitcoin Cash — a fork now marginalized.
But it left lasting scars on the community.
Today, the risk is similar:
- if Core pushes its update at all costs,
- and if Knots refuses to relay certain transactions,
then a parallel chain could see the light of day, creating two incompatible Bitcoins.
A historic turning point for the ecosystem
On the one hand, modernizing the protocol is essential: Bitcoin cannot remain static if it wants to compete with innovations in the crypto world.
On the other hand, touching its founding principles risks opening a Pandora's box.
The next few months will therefore be decisive.
Core is expected to release version 30 before the end of the year.
Knots, himself, has already announced that he will block by default transactions deemed non-monetary.
The network will have to decide, not by vote, but by facts: which version will the majority of nodes choose to run?
Conclusion: Bitcoin, a (very) living protocol
This crisis reminds us of one essential thing: Bitcoin is not frozen.
It is not “a” software, but an ecosystem of implementations, humans and ideas.
And every tension, every disagreement, every contested line of code is also a sign of a network… alive.
Whether you support Core or Knots, one thing is certain:
Bitcoin continues to force humanity to question power—not just of money, but also of code.
