In recent months, while most of the Bitcoin community discusses supports, resistances, and possible market bottoms, a much deeper tension has been forming behind the scenes—involving high-impact developers, historical figures, and decisions that could define the ethical, technical, and political future of the world's largest cryptocurrency. Among the names mentioned are Nick Szabo, the intellectual reference of Bitcoin, and the Brazilian JP Maia, who has become one of the protagonists of the discussion. And although hardly anyone talks about it publicly, this ideological conflict has generated dissatisfaction, fear of structural changes, and even market panic regarding a fork in the network.
The heart of the controversy is seemingly 'simple: who pays the fee can register anything on the blockchain?'
Ordinals, inscriptions, and arbitrary data recorded directly on the blocks have reignited an old debate: should Bitcoin only be a secure global monetary system, or can it be used as an immutable repository for any type of information? For a group of developers, this total freedom represents the pinnacle of libertarian ethos: no censorship, no control, no filters. If someone pays, they have the right to record whatever they want.
But this view brings profound consequences. From a technical point of view, allowing arbitrary data makes the blockchain larger, more expensive to operate, and can compromise its main functionality — secure and decentralized value transfer. "Full" nodes become heavier, the network becomes congested, common transactions become more expensive. In times of stress, investors fear margin calls, liquidations, and reduced liquidity, fueling price drops.
However, the ethical and legal impact is even more explosive. If the blockchain is immutable, what happens when someone records illegal, immoral, or offensive content on it? Some advocates of total freedom claim: 'this is the price of freedom.' However, this logic ignores a fundamental point: 'the total absence of rules does not necessarily generate total and pure freedom!' In the total absence of rules, there is not necessarily total freedom, because whoever holds more power will control the environment and dictate the rules — only delivering it to those who can abuse it.
In the total absence of rules, not even the 'principle of non-harm' is safe. The libertarian principle of non-aggression (NAP), the basis of anarcho-capitalism, states that freedom is only valid to the extent that it does not harm others. At the moment it is defended that anything can be registered if there is payment, this principle is abandoned. After all, if someone can register child content, personal data, defamation, moral or criminal attacks, terrorist messages, without any consequence, where is the ethical limit of non-harm to others?
And here arises the uncomfortable reflection: Many who advocate for absolute freedom in these immutable records would radically change their opinion if, for example, a resentful ex-boyfriend permanently registered an intimate photo of his wife on the blockchain, an illegal montage with his daughter, or content involving a minor from his family. And then? Would you still defend that 'who pays, does what they want'? Would you accept that this record, now public and eternal, could never be removed?
If there are no rules, there are also no mechanisms to punish, curb or prevent harm. Freedom without responsibility destroys the very libertarian foundation.
This is what is causing discomfort among devs, including respected figures like Szabo and JP Maia. It's not just a technical dispute — but a philosophical struggle for the future of Bitcoin: will it be a reliable and accepted global monetary system, or an anarchic repository that could carry the worst of humanity forever?
While the market pretends that this discussion doesn't exist, uncertainty increases, miners and developers are divided, and investors fear a possible fork or changes in consensus — factors that fuel the current sell-off and volatility. Many Devs, including, have sold part of their assets in the currency as a demonstration of protest.
In the end, many will say: 'I am in favor of total freedom. Who pays should have the right.'
But before repeating this phrase, the final provocation is worth considering: If you really believe in this, would you be willing to accept that someone registered forever on the blockchain — public and immutable — something that harmed you or your family? An intimate image of your daughter, a moral attack on your wife, content involving minors related to you? If the answer is no, then perhaps absolute freedom is not as simple or as just as it seems. After all, does this type of freedom respect the 'Libertarian Principle of Non-Harm to Others'?
The surprising and unexpected highs of #Zcash, #Monero, and #Dash also have a touch of this discussion, after all, they aim to maintain their exclusive nature as money and a store of value, causing a good part of the pure maximalists aligned with Nick Zabo and JP Maia to view them favorably.
And it is exactly this contradiction that is igniting the behind-the-scenes of Bitcoin — and that could help impact this moment.
But what about you, what do you think about this?