F2Pool Founder Rejects Bitcoin BIP-444 Soft Fork

Chun Wang, co-founder of F2Pool, one of Bitcoin’s largest mining pools, has taken a firm stance against the proposed BIP-444 soft fork. In a Monday social media post, Wang explicitly stated that ‘BIP-444 is a bad idea’ and declared that he, and presumably F2Pool, are ‘not going to soft fork anything,’ whether it is ‘temporary or not.’ This opposition from a major mining pool operator represents significant resistance to a proposal that seeks to address network spam by limiting arbitrary onchain data.

The strength of Wang’s rejection is particularly notable given F2Pool’s substantial influence within the Bitcoin ecosystem. As one of the largest mining pools globally, F2Pool’s support or opposition can significantly impact the adoption of proposed changes to the Bitcoin protocol. Wang’s categorical refusal to support any soft fork, temporary or permanent, suggests deep-seated concerns about the direction of Bitcoin’s development and the fundamental approach to network management.

BIP-444 represents a proposed temporary soft fork aimed at curbing what developers perceive as data spam on the Bitcoin network. The improvement proposal specifically targets arbitrary onchain data, which has become an increasing concern as the network handles growing transaction volumes. By limiting non-essential data, proponents argue that BIP-444 would help maintain network efficiency and reduce congestion, potentially lowering transaction costs for legitimate users.

The proposal’s temporary nature suggests developers view it as an interim solution while more permanent approaches are developed. However, Wang’s criticism indicates that even temporary measures face significant opposition from key network participants. The debate around BIP-444 reflects broader tensions between maintaining Bitcoin’s core principles of decentralization and censorship-resistance while addressing practical concerns about network performance and scalability.

Wang’s comments reveal deepening divisions within the Bitcoin community, particularly between developers and major mining operators. His statement that he ‘feels sad that some devs [are] moving further and further in the wrong direction’ suggests fundamental disagreements about Bitcoin’s development trajectory. This sentiment echoes historical tensions in Bitcoin governance, where the balance of power between developers, miners, and users has been a recurring source of conflict.

The opposition from F2Pool highlights the complex dynamics of Bitcoin’s consensus mechanism, where major mining pools wield substantial influence over which protocol changes are adopted. Wang’s position suggests that some mining operators may view proposals like BIP-444 as unnecessary interventions that could set problematic precedents for future network governance. This resistance could force developers to reconsider their approach or seek broader community consensus before moving forward with similar proposals.

The standoff over BIP-444 represents more than just a technical disagreement; it reflects competing visions for Bitcoin’s future development. While developers focus on network optimization and spam reduction, mining operators like Wang appear concerned about maintaining the protocol’s original principles and avoiding what they perceive as unnecessary complexity or centralization. This tension between innovation and conservation continues to shape Bitcoin’s evolution as both a technological platform and a decentralized financial system.