Over the past years, Bitcoin has gradually increased in complexity through various upgrades. That have a lot of great features, but the downside of this trend is now becoming clear: new vectors for spam and unintended usage have emerged.
Developers also face structural incentives to add complexity, because complexity requires ongoing maintenance and concentrates influence among those who are able to understand and control the expanding codebase. This is why it is crucial to closely observe and critically question new developments. It raises the question of why such a controversial change is being advanced without a clear understanding of its long-term implications.
At the same time, parts of the Bitcoin Core community seem to have shifted away from Bitcoin’s original purpose as self-sovereign, decentralized money. The increasing alignment with ETFs, institutional custody models, and corporate treasury strategies risks shaping Bitcoin into something more centralized and easier to influence.
For Bitcoin to remain resilient, it must stay simple, conservative, and focused on its core function: money that individuals can hold and validate themselves. Limiting spam and keeping the protocol lean is essential to preserve decentralization.
For these reasons, I support the proposed soft fork.
nostr:nprofile1qqsw3p5pela795rxxff34kgfafsaawhnkqp8ehmgm2my49dgx9fjclcpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgqgkwaehxw309aex2mrp0yh8qunfd4skctnwv46qpk04na nostr:nprofile1qqs8fl79rnpsz5x00xmvkvtd8g2u7ve2k2dr3lkfadyy4v24r4k3s4sppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7c9ljrg nostr:nprofile1qqs0m40g76hqmwqhhc9hrk3qfxxpsp5k3k9xgk24nsjf7v305u6xffcpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhszxthwden5te0wfjkccte9eekummjwsh8xmmrd9skctcesmjwd