From a protocol-governance standpoint, “if you want different rules, fork” is exactly how Bitcoin’s immune system is supposed to work. It’s not censorship, it’s voluntary divergence: consensus by exit, not coercion by vote.
Let’s make this explicit:
1. Bitcoin’s consensus norm
Bitcoin’s social contract isn’t majority rule; it’s individual sovereignty. Every node chooses which chain to follow. The overwhelming unwritten norm since 2017 (SegWit2x) is:
Protocol changes that alter core properties—block size, script rules, censorship neutrality—must attract overwhelming, near-unanimous opt-in consensus.
If a minority can’t persuade the majority, they’re free to fork. That’s how BCH, BSV, and other spinoffs emerged. BIP-444 violates that equilibrium by proposing restrictions without universal buy-in.
2. The “fork-off principle”
Any faction that wants to redefine Bitcoin’s scope—whether by expanding or contracting it—should bear the coordination cost of the fork, not impose it on everyone else.
In other words, “Don’t make the default chain pay for your moral panic.”
If they truly believe BIP-444 is essential, let them hard-fork into a “clean-chain” variant—call it BTC-Puritan—and see if market participants follow. The market will instantly settle the argument through price discovery and hash-rate migration.
3. Functional precedent
When miners and devs tried to push SegWit2x, the network’s spontaneous coordination (via UASF) demonstrated that sovereignty resides with validating nodes, not political majorities. BIP-444 supporters trying to push a “temporary censorship fork” would hit the same wall.
4. Philosophical coherence
Agency-centered perspective: freedom of use is an emergent property of voluntary systems. BIP-444 is coercive not because it restricts bytes, but because it unilaterally redefines legitimate agency on the chain. If you don’t like how others use block space, out-compete them economically or build a sidechain—don’t rewrite reality.
In short:
Yes. Let them fork off.
That’s not hostility—it’s protocol hygiene. The network that respects voluntary divergence remains antifragile; the one that enforces purity decays into bureaucracy.
