BIP-444 legal warning sparks community backlash

BIP-444 suggests that refusing to fork may pose “legal or moral” risks, which is seen as high-handed language and has angered the community.

The Bitcoin (BTC) developer community is facing some angst following the publication of Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 444 (BIP-444), a “data reduction” soft fork aimed at restricting certain types of data storage on-chain.

The proposal, introduced by contributor dathonohm and associated with long-time developer Luke Dashjr, sparked controversy due to language suggesting legal ramifications for refusing to fork.

controversial proposal

BIP-444, published on October 24, 2025, is labeled “Reduced Data Temporary Softfork.” Its main purpose is to stop people from storing large files such as images within Bitcoin transactions.

The authors argue that this is necessary because Bitcoin Core 30 removed the 80-byte cap on OP_RETURN transactions, allowing users to store nearly 4 MB of non-financial data on-chain. They argue that this could permanently add illegal content to the blockchain, exposing anyone running a Bitcoin node to legal risk.

Dashjr previously described the changes made to the OP_RETURN transaction as “utter madness” and warned that it would open the door to spam and unwanted data. Supporters of the amendment argued that Bitcoin should remain neutral and relay all valid transactions regardless of purpose. Now, BIP-444 appears to be a reaction to that liberalization, an effort to reintroduce stricter restrictions after the Core 30 expansion.

But critics say the proposal’s tone and technical implications cross a line. “Rejecting this soft fork may expose you to legal or moral consequences, or may result in a split into a new altcoin like Bcash,” the draft warns in part. This is seen by many as an attempt to use fear to force change.

Another section calls for a “retroactive chain reorganization” to counter the “immediate crisis” caused by Bitcoin Core 30’s alleged illegal content. This means that if a block is found containing “questionable content,” new rules can be applied to erase that block and all subsequent blocks, effectively rewriting part of the blockchain’s history.

You may also like:

Critics point out that the proposal acknowledges it won’t completely stop spam. It will also impose severe restrictions on advanced smart contracts, potentially pausing the development of projects like BitVM.

Community sectors and technical concerns

The backlash from prominent figures in the community was swift and fierce. Research group BitMEX Research warned that the plan could: Opposition of intended effect.

“A malicious attacker wishing to perform a double-spend attack could place CSAM on-chain and cause a reorganization to successfully execute the attack,” they posted. “This proposal therefore provides economic incentives for on-chain CSAM.”

Many are concerned about the technological implications. Developer Stephan Livera highlighted comments from fellow experts. warned Restricting Taproot scripts and removing OP_IF can potentially “freeze funds” and block legitimate smart contract use cases such as inheritance and recovery systems.

Nitesh, another developer, expressed a common sentiment of frustration. Post:

“BIP sounds like the government is threatening us.”

Comparing the aggressive style of this proposal to the cautious approach typically taken with Bitcoin changes, developer Matt Corallo summed up many of the concerns, simply stating, “This BIP: YOLO.”

But supporters see the measure as a short-term solution. On-chain analyst _Checkmate defended the plan, saying, “A temporary soft fork is necessary to stop the spread of spam. Just give it two weeks.” Daschle himself answered He told critics there was “no technical objection” to the proposal and that it was aimed at disabling spam-based Taproot abuse.