Why Bitcoin Core's v30 update is a potentially-deadly attack on Bitcoin.

This is Bitcoin's most important fight, but very few people realize.

The Bitcoin Core devs don't like filters, but they want to filter you out of the conversation with appeals to authority ("You're not a dev, therefore you can't have an opinion"), and this aims to misdirect from the potentially deadly consequences for Bitcoin's main selling points - decentralization and security.

Bitcoin Core v30 removes the long-standing ~80 B OP_RETURN relay default, effectively making large OP_RETURN payloads easy by default and allowing multiple OP_RETURNs per tx.

Let's think about the implications, and let's think in terms of who benefits from more, larger, easier on-chain data and who pays the externalities.

1) Regulatory honey-trap - If the chain becomes an easy host for arbitrary blobs, the next scandal (e.g., illegal content embedded, possibly child p--n) gives lawmakers pretext to reclassify full nodes as "content distributors/publishers".

That paves the road for licensing, KYC for node operators, takedown obligations, or "registered node provider" regimes.

Winners: compliance vendors, "approved node" cloud services, analytics firms. Losers: pleb nodes, self-hosters.

"Node = Publisher" is the obvious consequence. Legislators/regulators classify full nodes (or relays) as content hosts subject to: registration, record-keeping, geo-blocking, lawful-order response, and civil/criminal liability for stored/relayed contraband.

2) Centralization by cost - Bigger payloads -> higher bandwidth, storage, and relay complexity. That prices out low-end hardware and nudges operators into cloud + professional node providers.

Once nodes centralize, policy steering (terms of service, geo-fencing, block filters) becomes trivial.

Hardware/storage/bandwidth creep + legal fear -> pleb nodes switch off; reachable network centralizes in a few jurisdictions/clouds.

Propagation degradation follows. Big OP_RETURN payloads cause mempool churn, higher orphan risk for small miners, and more policy divergence (rejected tx sets).

Cloud bans are a given. Major cloud providers update AUPs (Acceptable Use Policy); ban default Bitcoin full nodes or require approved builds with content filters and logging.

3) Narrative containment via reputational torpedo - If Bitcoin is publicly associated with offensive embedded data (e.g. child p--n), the average institution deems it tainted and un-brand-safe.

That pushes mainstream flow into ETFs/custody wrappers ("you can have price exposure without touching the messy network") - "hold paper Bitcoin, not sovereign money".

"Bitcoin hosts illegal content" headlines will go mainstream. Enterprises’ risk committees will freeze direct chain integrations. VCs will pressure wallets to gate content or drop base-layer support.

The "digital cash" brand morphs into "ETF commodity with a messy chain only weirdos run".

4) Fee engineering for aligned incumbents - More non-monetary data -> fatter blocks and intermittent fee spikes. Miners, large pools, and indexing/ordinals marketplaces monetize that; base-layer Medium of Exchange users get squeezed.

Indexers, ordinals marketplaces, analytics, and miners want the payloads and their fees. Capture today, externalize tomorrow.

Lightning channel management costs rise, discouraging grassroots payments.

Higher, spikier base fees + greater policy divergence -> worse confirmation predictability for merchants and channel ops.

Lightning payment UX deteriorates (more expensive opens/renews), so retail sticks to KYC wallets and custodial L2s where operators can implement content gates.

Merchants and payroll providers pull back from native chain integrations; Medium of Exchange stalls, Store-of-value-in-wrappers dominates.

5) Make "money-first" resistance look like "censorship" - If a minority runs stricter policy (e.g. Knots), they can be framed as censors. That optics battle helps consolidate Core-default policy hegemony and marginalizes filter-heavy peers.

6) Strategic ambiguity -> de facto policy power - Turning off a guardrail without a crisp replacement invites policy shopping: pools, relays, infra middlemen step in with private standards (block-lists, fee tiers), shifting power from open-source repos to commercial choke-points.

7) Supply ordinals markets - Whether you like them or not, inscriptions are a lucrative niche. Default-easy OP_RETURN makes commercial indexing and data-markets cleaner to build (and sell) than witness hacks.

8) Preemptive positioning for "responsible chain" legislation - Once problems surface, the coalition can say: "We tried neutrality, now we will ship safety-by-default with industry partners". That locks in approved filters, approved node providers, and paid audits.

9) UTXO optics jui jitsu - Moving data from witness/UTXO tricks into OP_RETURN lets maintainers claim they are reducing UTXO bloat while ignoring legal surface expansion; technically true, but politically combustible.

10) Tempo warfare - Pushing this quickly is the only way it passes. It relies on people assuming that Bitcoin Core devs and Bitcoin plebs are incentives aligned - which is clearly not the case. It also gives Core devs an out - we might've rushed the change and not accounted for unforeseen consequences.

This is Pre-crisis positioning: Land defaults before a scandal, so the post-scandal "fix" can be centralized filtering stacks run by approved partners.

This move also aims to Sync with upcoming CBDC/ID roll-outs and ETF growth-channel demand into supervised rails, keep base layer messy enough to be professionally intermediated.

11) Money-transmitter bleed-over. Some jurisdictions conflate node/relay ops with financial services; "unlicensed operation" cases follow.

An unlicensed money transmitter refers to a business or individual that transmits money without the required legal authorization.

In the context of a Bitcoin node, if it facilitates transactions or transfers of Bitcoin without adhering to regulatory requirements, it could be considered operating as an unlicensed money transmitter.

So how bad can it really get?

1) v30 ships, payloads climb, first high-profile illegal blob incident occurs (e.g. child p--n).

2) Cloud bans default nodes; insurers exclude coverage, exchanges move to approved relay providers.

3) A "Safety Act" passes in one big jurisdiction, others copy. Registered node providers become a thing, home nodes risk non-compliance.

4) Node count falls, mempool policy homogenizes around commercially filtered relays, self-run sovereignty shrinks.

5) Base-layer fees remain elevated/noisy, MoE adoption slows; ETF/custody exposure grows -> containment complete.

What should you do? Run Knots or don't upgrade to Bitcoin Core V30.

Just look at who the beneficiaries of the change are - the beneficiaries are the rails: analytics/compliance (chain surveillance), approved node providers, miners with scale, ETF/custody platforms, policy-aligned cloud vendors, and all fiat-horny governments.

Who are the losers - the wallets that rely on broad unfettered relay, small miners, and grassroots payment businesses.

It's not complicated:

- If you wanted Bitcoin to become a supervised financial asset rather than a grassroots medium of exchange, you'd normalize big, default-relayed data, wait for the predictable scandal, and then usher in licensed nodes, filtered relays, and custody dependence - all while saying it's just "free market mempool policy".

Do you remember when "Elizabeth Warren" (of course it's not her, its the deep State central bankers) attacked Bitcoin nodes - painting them as unlicensed money transmitters.

This happened in December of 2023.

She argues that Bitcoin's decentralized nature allows for unregulated activities, including operating as an unlicensed money transmitter.

She argues that without proper oversight, Bitcoin can facilitate illegal activities and evade traditional financial regulations.

Well this is Bitcoin Core's solution to Bitcoin's decentralization and security "problem".

Problem -> Reaction -> Solution.

This is how the deep state pushes the "Bitcoin node unlicensed money transmitter" narrative into laws and regulations.

Bitcoin is in the fight of its life. You can still get fiat-rich without decentralization and security, but in my eyes, without them Bitcoin dies.