The war of nodes in Bitcoin, towards a bifurcation?

The Bitcoin Network faces a new chapter of internal tensions that remembers historical conflicts such as the 2015-2017 block size war.

This conflict divided the community between those who wanted larger blocks for faster transactions and who prioritized decentralization. That story triggered a bifurcation and the creation of Bitcoin Cash, a practically disused network today.

In this case, and as cryptootics reported, the confrontation is among customer users Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Knots. The differences reside in the purpose of Bitcoin as a monetary system (Knots) versus the extension of its use for non -financial data (Core).

The conflict has intensified after a developer created a black list of bitcoin Knots attainable nodeswhich suggests an attempt to isolate the users of this client.

At the time of this article, Bitcoin Core operates 86% of the nodes, about 19,000 out of around 22,300, according to data of Cindance. For its part, Bitcoin Knots already represents 14% of the nodes (3,100), having grown up rapidly in recent months, coinciding with a Fall in the number of Core operators.

Then, if the percentage of Bitcoin Knots runners increased to 30/40% of the total and the current discrepancies were maintained, would this “customer war” a real prelude to a bifurcation, or a deep philosophical dispute?

Differences and opinions of Bitcoin client defenders

This tension is reflected in debates on X, where, for example, the collaborator of Core, Peter Todd, affirmed: «There is a good argument to ban Knots nodes. They do not help spread transactions What do you want them to spread ».

To that comment, a person He replied: «Peter Todd makes it clear: you should prohibit Knots if you want spamyou should use core if you want spam. If not, you should probably use Knots ».

For his part, the developer who devised that blacklist, said that the Knots nodes distort the rates estimate and increase the latency of block propagationpointing out that circumstance would affect the efficiency of the network.

Additionally, Core collaborators, in a controversial announcement, argued that “the freedom to execute any software is the main protection of the network against coercion,” accepting non -monetary uses which are currently registered in the network created by Satoshi Nakamoto.

Luke Dashjr, main Knots Maintenance, wrote On July 1, emphasizing the differences: «There is nothing that wants more than simply collaborating with everyone in Core. They work on what interests them, I am interested in. But that is not possible while they are actively trying to destroy Bitcoin ».

Are there the real possibilities of a bifurcation in Bitcoin?

A bifurcation (Hardfork) occurs when an update of the protocol is incompatible with previous versions, forcing nodes and miners to choose between two chains.

If the adoption of Knots nodes reached a higher percentage (for example, 30-40% of the nodes) and have the support of miners, there could be enough impulse to propose a change in the consensus rules, how to restrict op_return or impose mandatory filters for transactions.

A current scenario, in which Knots implements a rule that rejects blocks with large op_return transactions, while Core accepts them, causes a division in the Bitcoiner community.

However, 14% of nodes that Knots use is still a minority compared to 86% Core. In addition, there is no evidence that miners, responsible for validating blocks and essential for consensus, are adopting mass Knots.

The bitcoiner who calls himself wicked in x He warned: «Thus began the debate of the big blocks. There is a path where the filters could cause a division of the chain, although I doubt they have the courage to do so ».

Then, a “Blockchain” technology enthusiast added: «The last civil war of Bitcoin, between 2015 and 2017, was for the size of the blocks and led to Hardfork from Bitcoin Cash. Now, op_return and retransmission policies could trigger a Second Civil War, offering a lesson on decentralized governance ».

These positions illustrate how disagreement on retransmission policies and Bitcoin’s purpose could, in an extreme scenario, climb towards a bifurcation, although the lack of unidirectional consensus by certain groups in the fundamental rules maintains this possibility in the field of speculation.

If these philosophical differences moved to a disagreement about consensus rules (The fundamental norms that all nodes must follow to validate blocks), could potentially emerge incompatible proposals that divide the network into two.

Obstacles for a hardfork

Despite tensions, there are factors that suggest that a Hardfork It is unlikely in the short term.

First, the conflict between Core and Knots focuses on Mempool policies (the rules that each node applies to prioritize transactions in its temporary memory) and not in the consensus ruleswhich are the unwavering pillar of Bitcoin.

These rules define fundamental aspects, such as supply limit of 21 million bitcoinsor the requirements for a transaction to be valid (such as the correct cryptographic firm).

These rules remain immune to the current debate, since, if a miner rejects a transaction, Another can validate itpreserving the integrity of the network.

The differences in criteria between nodes do not divide the network, unless censorship between them, such as the systematic rejection of blocks, becomes a significant problem.

Thus, a Hardfork It occurs when a change in consensus rules is proposed that is not compatible with the previous versions of the software. This means that the nodes that adopt the new rule will accept blocks that the nodes with the old rules will reject, and vice versa, resulting in two separate blockchains.

Another key challenge in a Hardfork It is his economic and operational impact. A bifurcation creates two chains with an identical history until the moment of division, as happened with Bitcoin Cash in 2017, allowing Bitcoin holders to claim coins in the new chain, which can increase its nominal value.

However, the minority chain, probably that of Knots, would face less adoption and market value, generating volatility and discouraging exchanges and custodians to support it without a majority consensus.

In addition, transactions prior to Hardfork They are shared, but the subsequent ones are independent, and risks such as repetition attacks, although mitigable with technical measures, they add operational complexity for the actors of the network.

However, the rapid growth of Bitcoin Knots operators indicates a discontent with Bitcoin Core policies. If this trend continues and Knots gains support in the Bitcoiner community, proposals could arise to change the consensus rules, opening the door to an eventual Hardfork.

While the “Customer War” continues, the Bitcoin network continues to sail the tensions that define the current conflict: the bid between innovation and fidelity to its original vision.