The Bitcoin (BTC) developer community is facing some disquiet after the publication of Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 444 (BIP-444), a “reduced data” soft fork that aims to restrict certain types of data storage on-chain. The proposal, introduced by contributor dathonohm and linked to long-time developer Luke Dashjr, has triggered debate due to language suggesting legal consequences for rejecting the fork.
The Contentious Proposal
Published on October 24, 2025, BIP-444 is labeled a “Reduced Data Temporary Softfork.” Its main goal is to stop people from storing large files, like images, within Bitcoin transactions. The authors argue this is needed because Bitcoin Core 30 lifted the 80-byte cap on OP_RETURN transactions, allowing users to store nearly 4 MB of non-financial data on-chain. They claim it could lead to illegal content being permanently added to the blockchain, putting every person running a Bitcoin node at legal risk.
Dashjr previously described the changes made to OP_RETURN transactions as “utter insanity,” warning it would open the door to spam and unwanted data. Supporters of the modification argued that Bitcoin should remain neutral, relaying all valid transactions regardless of purpose. Now, BIP-444 appears to be a counterreaction to that liberalization, an effort to reintroduce strict limits after Core 30’s expansion.
However, critics argue that the proposal’s tone and technical implications cross a line. In one section, the draft warns that “rejecting this softfork may subject you to legal or moral consequences, or could result in you splitting off to a new altcoin like Bcash.” This has been seen by many as an attempt to force the change through by using fear.
Another part calls for “retroactive chain reorganization” to counter “an immediate crisis” caused by alleged illegal content in Bitcoin Core 30. This means that if a block with “troublesome content” is found, the new rules could be applied to erase it and all blocks after it, effectively rewriting a part of the blockchain’s history.
Critics point out that the proposal admits it does not completely stop spam. It also places strict limits on advanced smart contracts, which could pause development on projects like BitVM.
Community Division and Technical Concerns
The backlash from well-known community figures has been swift and severe. Research group BitMEX Research warned that the plan could have the opposite of its intended effect.
“A bad actor who wants to conduct a double spend attack could put CSAM onchain to cause a re-org and succeed with their attack,” they posted. “The proposal therefore provides an economic incentive for onchain CSAM.”
Many are worried about the technical fallout. Developer Stephan Livera highlighted a comment from a fellow expert who warned that restricting Taproot scripts and removing OP_IF could “freeze funds” or block legitimate smart contract use cases like inheritance and recovery systems.
Another developer, Nitesh, expressed a common feeling of frustration, posting:
“The way the BIP has been worded sounds like the govt is threatening us.”
Developer Matt Corallo summed up the concerns of many by comparing the careful approach usually taken with Bitcoin changes to this proposal’s aggressive style, simply stating, “This BIP: ‘YOLO’”.
Supporters, however, see the measure as a short-term fix. On-chain analyst _Checkmate defended the plan, saying, “We need a temporary soft fork to stop the spread of spam. Just give us two weeks.” Dashjr himself responded to critics by saying the proposal has “no technical objections” and aims to make spam-based Taproot abuse invalid.