Vitalik Buterin has waded into Bitcoin's long-running debate over “spam” policies and node software philosophy, with a scathing comment from Bitcoin developer Gregory Maxwell framing the debate as a clash between open, market-driven neutrality and populist demands for censorship. The post was amplified. “Greg Maxwell now defends a principled commitment to freedom and open market-based resource allocation against the populist desire to censor what is hateful,” Buterin wrote on X and BitMEX Research during the “Core v Knots” debate. Research)'s “Fight Story” summary.
Buterin's Position: Support for Bitcoin Core
The immediate trigger was a new message from Maxwell posted on Bitcointalk “at 6:40:27 PM today” in response to pressure from Bitcoin Core maintainers to ship code perceived to filter out or degrade unfavorable transaction types. Maxwell argues that Bitcoin Core’s position “going back AFAICT to Satoshi” is that “Bitcoin is a system secured by economics and self-interest.” In his words, he argued that the proposals associated with Bitcoin Knots and its supporters amount to building a “weapon that can be used against Bitcoin” and that core contributors will not take this direction.
Maxwell's post generously outlines the content and tone of the current push to limit on-chain activity. “Bitcoin’s knotted vision seems to be a system guaranteed by altruistic hope and populist theocracy, including cancel culture and paper straw bans.” He added that these campaigns are “really popular on social media and we expect them to be huge failures in the real world.”
He acknowledges the widespread distaste among Core regulars for “NFT/shitcoin traffic,” but says a commitment to unlicensed use must override aesthetic preferences. “Core’s commitment to individual freedom, self-determination, and related principles is great enough to recognize that a few wasteful or foolish traffic is the cost of an open system, and that speculative small improvements associated with ‘spam’ are not worth risking the properties that underpin Bitcoin’s entire reason for existence.”
The crux of Maxwell's argument is that projects “likely to be censored” simply because they are “loud and obnoxious” should not lead to legal threats or government action. Instead, contributors “will use and improve Bitcoin to circumvent them as they would any other attacker’s weapon.”
He emphasizes that Bitcoin Core is not a vendor optimizing for customers, but a group building the network they want to use: “The people working on Bitcoin work on their own to create and secure the system they want to use. They are not building products for customers… Of course, if they want what they have built, everyone is invited to share in the benefits of their work. But They will not work against their own interests in an open system protected by economics and resistant to human influence because of popularity. “Cry out.”
The phrase ‘this is not a product for customers’ quickly became a flash point. X user BaconBitz objected, saying “Everyone who runs Core is a customer. This is the dumbest thing I've ever read.” Buterin, who had previously elevated the exchange, rejected that framing with a succinct, aesthetic defense. “No, this is a paragraph written by someone who understands that a good protocol is a work of art.”
Maxwell also connects today's unrest to a broader cultural response to the popularity of on-chain experimentation. In his post, he argues that “filter fundamentalism is not a problem at all” largely due to the “popular success of the NFT/shitcoin bullshit,” and makes a point about Luke Dashjr's longstanding defense of what Maxwell characterizes as the “private trading morality police.”
In characteristically caustic fashion, he suggested that advocacy had “gained some traction” not only due to recent changes in sentiment but also due to fundraising dynamics, adding, “He has received millions of dollars in philanthropic investment since becoming an involuntary no-coiner, and he can now pay people to work with him and promote his position, as few people previously did so voluntarily.” “There is,” he claimed.
The background to all of this is the practical question of what Bitcoin Core should do at the code level to address the surge in demand for block space caused by inscriptions, NFTs, or other fads that critics call “spam.” Maxwell's answer is clear. Permission-free design and economic incentives are defenses, not arbitrary filters.
“It’s not new that there is a significant portion of the population that understands ‘I object to what you say, but I will fiercely defend your right to say it,’ and a significant portion (and vocal!) that do not understand or agree with it.” In that sense, he warns against meeting censors “at any level” and rejects the idea that the threat of state action should steer protocol management responsibilities.
At press time, Bitcoin was trading at $111,567.
Featured image created with DALL.E, chart from TradingView.com
editing process for focuses on providing thoroughly researched, accurate, and unbiased content. We adhere to strict sourcing standards, and each page is diligently reviewed by our team of leading technology experts and seasoned editors. This process ensures the integrity, relevance, and value of the content for readers.
