Bitcoin is for money. Nothing else.

The parallels to back then are obvious. One side argues for smaller blocks and long-term decentralisation. The other side pushes changes that shift Bitcoin slowly away from money toward a general information layer. Looking at blockchain data from the past three years versus earlier periods shows the direct result of the current rule set and I don’t like where it leads.

One point many people overlook is that before v30, only public, identifiable operators could push big OP_RETURN data into blocks, which created a clear line of accountability. Today it’s a network-wide behavior: every node relays it, responsibility becomes diffuse and the impact on decentralization is now embedded in Bitcoin’s core protocol.

It is correct that before Core v30, miners could also include large OP_RETURN transactions in blocks, but that choice was made by clearly identifiable actors. Miners are public-facing companies. Deliberately mining large OP_RETURN data could lead to reputational damage, loss of hashrate, and in extreme cases legal consequences. That acted as a natural social and economic brake. With the opening of OP_RETURN, responsibility shifts from individual miners to the network as a whole. Every node now relays these transactions, regardless of their content. This removes clear attribution to a responsible actor. What used to be a conscious choice by a few miners becomes a structural property of the protocol. Large OP_RETURN data and inscriptions increase storage, bandwidth, and computational requirements. That raises the cost of running a node. Over time, fewer people can afford to operate their own nodes, which weakens decentralization and concentrates influence among large operators. In the long run, this can alter Bitcoin’s level of decentralization and change the balance of power within the network.

I’m also curious to see if opinions will change

I believe that once BIP adoption rises above 20%, miners will start upgrading to it before a UASF. The risk of turbulence and reputational damage for Bitcoin, especially around Lightning disruptions, exchange confusion, and price pressure, will push miners to protect themselves financially by preventing a fork and adopting the new rules. Miners who continue to mine spam would effectively split off from the main chain.

Isn’t that exactly why miners would support this BIP? If they want to stay profitable without creating chaos, all they have to do is back it and refuse to mine spam.

I get your point, but I disagree. For safety, transparency is actually a strength. As a medium of exchange, privacy is better, but that’s exactly what Bitcoin can offer.

Just like paying with gold isn’t practical for everyday use, paying with Bitcoin directly on-chain isn’t either. That’s why we end up with different trade-offs and approaches trusting companies, using protocols, or mixing both. The main thing that matters is that the on-chain layer can’t be censored and stays decentralised. If we want global payments to work for everyone, in my opinion there’s no way around taking responsibility for those trade-offs ourselves.

I choose a more optimistic view. The fight isn’t over. Lightning and eCash are powerful tools for increasing privacy. What we need now are strong, practical use cases that bring more people to Bitcoin. Not only because of the price. Nostr is already a solid start, and Fanfares, which I recently discovered, is interesting too. We can’t help everyone, but we can make sure people have real options to protect themselves if they choose to. That includes CoinJoin, Lightning, and eCash…

Thanks for the interview. I largely agree with Jimmy on almost all points, which is precisely why his final conclusion is hard to reconcile. He clearly understands the reasons for pursuing a fork and even acknowledges the upside of what is often framed as the strongest criticism of the BIP: that it makes future changes to Bitcoin harder. A stricter consensus reduces the risk of frequent or careless modifications and helps protect Bitcoin’s long-term stability. The only serious counterargument he raises is the risk of a network split. But Bitcoin is a long-term project, not a political compromise. If we believe something strengthens Bitcoin over the long run, short-term risks should not automatically prevent action. Doing nothing is also a choice. Clear signaling matters: the more people openly signal their position instead of waiting on the sidelines, the clearer the real consensus becomes and the stronger Bitcoin will be in the future. https://fountain.fm/episode/MPf5aJHxUZk34AHQClB4