“Pricey Bitcoin Core, Bitcoin is and should stay censorship resistant.” That’s the promise, the battle, and the road within the sand drawn this week as Leonidas, the host of The Ordinal Present, weighs in on the raging Spam Wars, warning Bitcoin Core:
“Any critical try by Bitcoin Core to tighten coverage guidelines or censor Ordinals and Runes transactions shall be met with decisive motion.”
Bitcoin Core: transaction censorship is a ‘harmful precedent’
Leonidas argues that the Bitcoin community was designed to be impartial, permissionless, and open to anybody prepared to pay aggressive charges. To censor JPEGs, memecoins, or any on-chain experiment beneath the guise of ‘spam’ is to undermine what units Bitcoin aside: resistance to censorship on the base layer. He warns:
“There isn’t a significant distinction between normalizing the censorship of JPEG or memecoin transactions and normalizing the censorship of sure financial transactions by nation-states. Each would set very harmful precedents.”
For anybody following the 2025 Spam Wars, the Core versus Knots debate is in all places, and node operators have begun voting with their ft, flocking to Knots for its aggressive anti-spam options.
Knots’ share has ballooned from 69 nodes at first of 2024 to over 4,200 in September 2025, now representing over 18% of the reachable community, a dramatic present of protest in opposition to Core’s upcoming v30 launch.
At stake is greater than OP_RETURN information limits right here. It’s a battle over Bitcoin’s soul: Ought to the protocol stay a strictly financial settlement layer, or can it evolve to assist revolutionary on-chain makes use of, so long as transaction charges are paid?
The Ordinals and Runes perspective
The Ordinals and Runes ecosystem, in line with Leonidas, has pushed over half a billion in charges, supporting miners and safety, whereas “utilizing Bitcoin as cash each day” outdoors of legacy narratives. They’re fed up pf being “gaslit” by Knots proponents.
Miners aren’t sitting out, both, he says. Many mining swimming pools commanding over half of Bitcoin’s hash fee have privately expressed willingness to just accept any consensus-valid transaction as long as safety and implementation are sound. That’s not neutrality in identify solely; it’s how protocol resilience is achieved on the bottom.
‘Standing with the Degens’: the Shinobi angle
Few feedback captured the temper fairly like Bitcoin Core’s Shinobi’s:
The Crypto Investor Blueprint: A 5-Day Course On Bagholding, Insider Entrance-Runs, and Lacking Alpha
“As retarded as I feel all of the sh*t they do is, I stand with the Degens. I cannot take part or standby whereas a bunch of moralizing puritanical clowns attempt to undermine the very factor Bitcoin exists to be: a censorship resistant system.”
It’s uncooked, it’s pissed off, and it echoes a broader sentiment amongst those that assume otherwise from Knots: resistance to any transaction censorship is non-negotiable, whether or not the risk is JPEGs, memecoins, or nation-state financial disputes.
Tensions proceed to boil over on X and Nostr, with miners, node operators, and builders locked in heated debates about almost each technical element from OP_RETURN caps to what constitutes “spam.”
Knots’ meteoric node share development has made fragmentation and chain splits greater than theoretical. As Bitcoin Core developer Peter Tood commented:
“This has gotten so out of hand that the Knots crowd have gotten a critical danger to Bitcoin.”
If adoption continues, Knots may attain 23% of the community by October, rerpreseting a tipping level for consensus. The message from Leonidas and plenty of different degens this week is evident:
“We won’t sit idly by whereas transaction censorship is normalized on Bitcoin. We’ll defend the ideas which have all the time set Bitcoin aside, reminiscent of open entry, censorship resistance, and neutrality on the base layer”.
To the gatekeepers at Bitcoin Core: Bitcoin is and should stay censorship resistant. Something much less would betray the very factor the world’s first digital forex was constructed to oppose.
