On October 26, a pseudonymous developer known as Dathon Ohm introduced a proposal for a soft fork of Bitcoin (BTC). This proposal includes a unique activation method involving mining pool operators who could opt to reject blocks containing illegal content, such as child sexual abuse material (CSAM) or classified national data. This could lead to a division of BTC into two distinct assets, each with its own market capitalization.
For several weeks, members of the Bitcoin community have engaged in efforts—often lighthearted—to uncover the identity of Ohm. The developer contends that Bitcoin“s consensus rules should restrict the storage of excessive data that does not pertain to the on-chain transfer of BTC. In support of this view, Ohm submitted a draft for a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP), suggesting a maximum OP_RETURN datacarrier of 83 bytes, significantly lower than the 100KB mempool limit introduced in Bitcoin Core version 30 (v30). Following this, the draft received a preliminary BIP number 444, which is expected to follow the current BIP 443.
Ohm”s proposal has garnered backing from Knots node operators, the second-most widely used Bitcoin node software. This support stems from shared concerns about the moral and legal implications for operators of Core v30 nodes. The lead developer of Knots, Luke Dashjr, has also aligned with Ohm”s stance on limiting the OP_RETURN datacarrier, leading many to speculate that Dashjr himself could be the real author behind BIP 444.
Dashjr has long criticized Bitcoin Core for its sporadic decisions to ease fees or accommodate on-chain data he considers “spam.” His fork of Core, known as Knots, has seen increased usage during the ongoing OP_RETURN debate. Despite speculation about his identity as Ohm, Dashjr has publicly denied these claims, a stance supported by his colleague and Knots co-leader, Bitcoin Mechanic, who has also stated he knows Ohm”s true identity but does not disclose it.
Other candidates for Ohm”s identity have emerged, including Casey Rodarmor, a developer associated with the controversial ordinal inscription protocol. Although some view Rodarmor as a potential suspect, the parameters of Ohm”s proposal would limit Bitcoin Taproot data and restrict Bitcoin script operations that could adversely affect Rodarmor”s ORD system. Other names floated include Chris Guida, a vocal critic of Core v30 and a supporter of Knots, as well as Nick Szabo, who has also criticized Core v30.
Ultimately, the identity of Bitcoin developers is not crucial for the success of a BIP. The merits of a proposal remain the primary focus, allowing even anonymous developers to influence Bitcoin policies and consensus rules without revealing their identities. While only a few individuals within the Bitcoin community are aware of Ohm”s identity, the fate of BIP 444 will hinge on the validity and quality of its recommendations rather than the author”s name.
For more developments in the cryptocurrency space, follow us on X, Bluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.
