Chapter 03. When exit is the only voice: Bitcoin relay policy

This is the July 2026 draft of chapter 03 in my new book, When Policy Falls Behind: Bitcoin, AI, and the Governance of Fast Systems. Copyright © 2026 by Murray A Rudd. A pdf version of this chapter is available at: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6557201

Introduction

The fastest equity trade in modern financial markets executes in nanoseconds while the regulatory frameworks governing those markets were built for daily settlement cycles (Marchant et al., 2011). The most capable AI systems acquire new functional competencies (e.g., Wei et al., 2022; Madaan et al., 2023; Snell et al., 2024) on deployment timelines now measured in weeks, yet the liability doctrines and safety frameworks that would govern their consequences (Selbst, 2020) are debated on legislative calendars measured in years (Gstrein et al., 2024). Bitcoin’s PoW consensus mechanism settles transactions with probabilistic finality in roughly 10-minutes (Nakamoto, 2008), while legacy legal systems used to determine what has been transacted – and under whose jurisdictional authority – remain contested across dozens of regulatory environments (Low and Teo, 2017).

These are three expressions of a single structural condition: governance systems operating at speeds fundamentally incompatible with the informational turnover they are required to govern (Marchant et al., 2011). In chapter 2, I labeled that condition institutional latency and argued that it originates in the path-dependent logic of institutional economics (North, 1990). Understanding the condition – rather than resolving it through faster regulation or smarter code – is the prerequisite for navigating the governance failures it generates.

After 17-years of continuous operation, Bitcoin has accumulated deep and analytically tractable institutional architecture. Its formal rules are transparent and well-documented (Böhme et al., 2015), and its informal norms – developer conventions, identity commitments, community expectations about what the protocol is for – have accumulated significant historical layering. The governance disputes that periodically fracture Bitcoin’s development and investment communities (De Filippi and Loveluck, 2016; Kwon et al., 2019; Bier, 2021) are not anomalies: they can be viewed as diagnostic events that make visible the structural properties that define the Bitcoin protocol.

The specific controversy I use to illustrate the institutional latency challenge in this chapter unfolded from 2024 to 2026: Bitcoin Core’s^[1] replacement of the old 83-byte OP_RETURN output limit with a relay default allowing for 100,000 bytes. This relay default dispute is significant because of where it sits in Bitcoin’s institutional architecture: it is contested within the informal norm layer rather than through the consensus rules that every validating node enforces. Both sides agree on what Bitcoin’s consensus rules enforce but they contest whether long-standing relay defaults constitute binding social commitments or discretionary configuration choices. This is the realm where value-based conflict often seems intractable and where institutional latency operates most consequentially. It is also the terrain where deliberative Bitcoin governance tools for resolving policy and governance disputes in a binding way are unavailable.

The structural condition that institutional latency describes is observable when algorithmic velocity outstrips institutional recognition capacity (Marchant et al., 2011; Beaumier et al., 2020) or where the governance system itself cannot, even with timely recognition, come to binding decisions (Chapter 2). AI governance faces a version of the same problem: computational intelligence deployed at scale generates social consequences that liability doctrines, safety standards, and regulatory architectures cannot address at the speed required (de Sá Vieira, 2026; Nguyen, 2026). Automated financial markets, platform regulation, and algorithmic decision-making in criminal justice, healthcare, and public administration all exhibit characteristic institutional latency dynamics (e.g., Lepri et al., 2018; Grote and Berens, 2020; Završnik, 2021). The framework that I develop here is thus designed to travel across these domains; the analysis centers on governance form mismatch (Williamson, 1979, 1985, 2002, 2010).

Institutional latency is not just a speed problem that faster information processing or computational policy analyses could dissolve. It is a governance form problem, a structural condition that arises when the governance forms available cannot supply what the governing transaction requires (Williamson, 1999). The informal norm layer, which North (1990) identified as the most path-dependent institutional form, is where the mismatch proves most resistant to correction. The result is not temporary dysfunction but persistent friction. I argue that the Core v30 versus Knots dispute is an instance of that mismatch rather than a technical controversy: dispute will resolve, if at all, only as economic weight concentrates or as actors escalate into formalization and exit.

Analytical apparatus

Williamson’s account of governance form selection (Williamson, 1985, 1991, 2002) anchors the choice of governance arrangement to asset specificity, uncertainty, and frequency. The configuration that matters here combines high asset specificity, high uncertainty, and low frequency, a combination that demands intensive deliberative governance with formal dispute resolution. That governance form is, however, unavailable in Bitcoin, where hierarchical authority is absent by design.

The IAD framework (Ostrom, 1990; Ostrom and Ostrom, 2004; Ostrom, 2005) supplies the action arena and the four nested levels I label operational, implementation, political, and epistemic (Rudd, 2004, 2010). The epistemic level sets the value filter and shapes how lower-level rulemaking participation and processes themselves change. Contestation at the epistemic level generates the most durable institutional latency because it concerns what there is most reason to want.

Computational knowledge is rule-following and amenable to algorithmic execution; Bitcoin’s consensus rules encode it, the register in which the “code-is-law” description holds (Lessig, 1999; De Filippi and Wright, 2018). Volitional choice is deliberative and irreducibly human, concerned with what there is reason to want (Bromley, 2006): what Bitcoin is for, which uses of block space are legitimate, and what the community owes future participants. Disputes at the political and epistemic levels are disputes about volitional choice and they cannot be settled computationally because they concern values, purposes, and commitments that require inquiry and deliberation (Rudd, 2000; Bromley, 2006). When I argue later that Bitcoin supplies inadequate mechanisms for political and epistemic level governance, my claim is that Bitcoin supplies inadequate built-in mechanisms for the collective exercise of volitional choice. Bitcoin offers no tool for rendering deliberation about what the community has most reason to want into binding institutional commitment. Such tools are, by design, unavailable.

Bitcoin as an institutional phenomenon

Classifying Bitcoin

Bitcoin is routinely categorized as a technology (Böhme et al., 2015; White et al., 2020; Akcora et al., 2022), an asset class with store of value or hedging properties (Dyhrberg, 2016; Bouri et al., 2017), or a proto-currency emerging as a medium of exchange (Ammous, 2018; Bibi, 2025; Kang et al., 2025b). Each categorization strategy generates its own analytical dead end (White et al., 2020). Technology framings focus on protocol design and miss the governance dynamics that determine how the protocol evolves. Asset class framings focus on price behavior and miss the institutional infrastructure that mediates between protocol logic and market outcomes. Currency framings draw on monetary theory designed for sovereign issuers and can miss the distinctive property rights regime that makes Bitcoin institutionally alien to the existing monetary hierarchy (e.g., Yermack, 2024).

These are not failures of analytical rigor within their respective disciplines but predictable consequence of applying toolkits designed for one institutional category to a system that belongs to none of them. Bitcoin is most productively understood as an institutional fact in Searle’s (2005) sense: a system whose properties depend on collective acceptance of constitutive rules rather than on physical characteristics alone. Bitcoin has no intrinsic physical form, so its identity as a monetary unit, store of value, or bearer instrument depends entirely on a distributed community of participants collectively accepting the constitutive rules of the protocol: that a valid transaction transfers ownership; that the chain with the most accumulated PoW represents the canonical ledger; and that 21 million units is the terminal supply (Nakamoto, 2008). Remove the collective acceptance and the protocol continues to execute but what it produces is unlikely to function as money, property, or the basis for a new type of monetary policy.

IAD levels applied to Bitcoin

At the operational level (Table 3.1), the action arena is where Bitcoin’s everyday transactional activity occurs: transaction broadcast and propagation; block production through PoW mining; node validation; and settlement of transfer claims. Actors are miners, node operators, wallet users, and custodians; the rules are the consensus parameters every validating node enforces together and norms, like the relay defaults, are soft choices that node operators make about which transactions they will propagate. This level is institutionally distinctive because it is self-enforcing: the protocol’s cryptographic architecture (Narayanan et al., 2016) makes defection from consensus rules economically prohibitive, and distributed validation across more than 25,000 reachable nodes^[2] means that no single actor can impose operational level rule changes unilaterally. It is also the only level at which the code-is-law thesis (Lessig, 1999; De Filippi and Wright, 2018) holds as a defensible empirical description, governance by computational knowledge that requires no deliberation about purposes.

Table 3.1. The four IAD levels applied to Bitcoin governance

Above the operational base the thesis breaks down; beyond that boundary, governance friction concentrates and institutional latency grows. Implementation level decisions about which BIPs^[3] to adopt, which relay defaults to maintain, and which changes to merge are made by developers and node operators exercising judgment under informal norms. These are not rules in the technical sense of carrying specified sanctions (Ostrom, 2005); they are social norms with unwritten sanctions, covering code review standards, the consensus threshold expected for protocol changes, the relationship between maintainers and the wider community, and implicit understandings about whose technical judgment carries authority. Because they are not codified, they cannot be formally amended through collective action; they are contested, violated, and revised only through the accumulation of precedent, and on a timescale that generates characteristic friction when implementation level situations turn over faster than the social norms governing them can adapt.

At the political level, Bitcoin’s identity commitments are established, contested, and reproduced through competing narrative frameworks – peer-to-peer electronic cash, digital gold, neutral settlement layer, etc. – each of which has accumulated enough community investment to constitute a distinct coordination equilibrium. Here financial and social capital is steered toward preferred implementations, arguments are crafted to legitimize particular choices, and coalitions form to help propogate high-level epistemic commitments downward to the operational level. Each narrative generates different implementation preferences and different judgments about which changes are improvements, which are acceptable compromises, and which are violations. The persistence of multiple competing narratives, rather than convergence on one, is itself evidence of path-dependent dynamics: each established itself early enough to create a coordination equilibrium that persuasion or force cannot dislodge.

At the epistemic level, the community confronts the question of what there is reason to want (Bromley, 2006) from Bitcoin as a governance system, and the answer sets the value filter through which participants judge which effects of the protocol are positive and which governance arrangements are legitimate. One cleavage now visible runs between a market rationalist position, exemplified by Core, that would let economic incentives settle block construction, and a position associated with Knots, that takes Nakamoto’s white paper (2008) conception of peer-to-peer electronic cash as fundamental, imposing a constraint every lower level must respect. The former relies on scarcity to price block space high enough that non-monetary transactions are naturally priced out; the latter would filter them so they do not consume block space for the storage of what it regards as spam. Market rationalists read filtering as censorship, which they contend directly contradicts Satoshi’s vision for a permissionless protocol. Note that epistemic rigidity carries a practical cost: it can foreclose technical advances that would make new features feasible over time – time-lock vaults, inheritance products, zero-knowledge attestations usable in voting systems, and other Layer 2 innovations (e.g., Qi et al., 2024; Kang et al., 2025a; Linus et al., 2025) – through political and implementation level commitments that originate at the epistemic level.

Vertical linkages and governance cascades

The interaction between levels is bidirectional (Chapter 2). Downward, epistemic commitments function as mandates: political level actors mobilize resources and narratives to implement them, steering capital and crafting legitimizing arguments that shape implementation rules and operational outcomes (Rudd, 2004; Rudd et al., 2018). When epistemic consensus holds, the cascade legitimizes the governance system; when it does not, political contestation instead shapes rival narratives and lower-level rules and norms. Operational outcomes also generate upward pressure for the revision of rules and norms, some of it merely informational and some normative (Maris and Béchet, 2010), which transmits judgments about whether existing arrangements remain adequate.

Permissionlessness as IAD configuration

A recurring source of confusion about Bitcoin arises because some actors treat permissionlessness as the absence of governance, as though a protocol without access controls had no institutional structure. In IAD terms it is not the absence of boundary and position rules but a specific configuration of them (Chapter 2): boundary rules impose no identity-based restriction on participation and position rules confer no privileged authority on the basis of entry or level of investment: any actor can hold Bitcoin and run a node. The “or-else” component of the sanction in ordinary rules is simply null but a substantive institutional arrangement remains.

In a permissioned system, authorized actors are identifiable in advance, their commitments can be monitored and formally enforced, and failures can be attributed to accountable parties with recourse available: actors have voice (Hirschman, 1970). In a permissionless system the relevant population is fluid, commitments are enforced only through informal norms and the exit option, and failures are distributed across actors whose contributions may be economic or philosophical, an environment in which institutional latency is durable because actors have exit but lack effective voice.

Client software choice is where the epistemic differences become visible. When a node operator selects Core v30 or Knots, it is not merely a technical selection; it expresses alignment with epistemic values and political commitments about what Bitcoin should be, commitments that carry operational consequences through the relay policies, default configurations, and filtering behaviors embedded in each client software option. These are volitional choices that cannot be automated. Treating permissionlessness as the absence of governance therefore misreads Bitcoin’s relay policy dispute as purely technical; treating it as a specific institutional configuration reveals a structure whose rules are informal, whose enforcement is reputational and exit-based, and whose outcomes turn on the relative strength of competing normative commitments.

Core v30 versus Knots: institutional latency in action

The technical and institutional stakes

Bitcoin Core’s late-2025 implementation of the change in the OP_RETURN relay default – from 83 bytes in v29 to 100,000 bytes in the v30 release – is, at the technical level, a change in a single mempool policy parameter. Bitcoin nodes maintain a waiting area (the mempool) for transactions that have been broadcast but not yet confirmed. Relay policy determines which of those transactions a node will pass along. OP_RETURN outputs allow data to be embedded in the blockchain in an unspendable form: the data is stored permanently but cannot be mistaken for spendable Bitcoin.

The 83-byte limit was a long-standing default restricting how much data could be embedded; the expansion to 100,000 bytes in Core v30 raises that capacity by more than a thousandfold. OP_RETURN is, however, only one of several locations where arbitrary data can enter the chain, and it is not the largest. The inscription technique behind the post-2022 surge in non-monetary data embeds payloads in witness data along Taproot script paths, where capacity is measured in megabytes rather than the kilobytes OP_RETURN now permits. The v30 change therefore bears less on embedded image data than on the structured metadata used by non-Bitcoin token issuers and bridging protocols.

The dispute is a contest over the boundary between Bitcoin’s formal consensus rules and its informal governance norms, between actors with incompatible epistemic and political level commitments about what that boundary means and who may revise it. The consensus rules are not at issue; no party to the relay default dispute proposes changing what every node enforces for block validation: what is contested is the status of relay policy.

Relay policy has historically been understood within Bitcoin Core as discretionary and configurable, a surface area where developer judgment rather than protocol enforcement is operative. Core maintainers associated with the “neutral settlement layer” position maintain this view, characterizing the OP_RETURN expansion as a practical alignment of policy consistent with existing miner behavior. They argue that spam will continue to propagate regardless via alternative embedding strategies; that a transition to Knots implementation software would preclude data-heavy technical improvements and Layer 2 scaling solutions; and that Knots is unproven and potentially unreliable. Members of the Knots community contest this, arguing that long-standing relay defaults have accumulated sufficient normative weight to constitute soft rules – constraints whose revision requires broad community consensus even if they carry no formal enforcement mechanism. The debate, conducted in informal venues, is often acrimonious.

The dispute’s significance lies not in which side is correct about the prior status of relay defaults but in revealing how ambiguous that status was: actors have retrospectively assigned different normative weights to the same long-standing practice. This is what my institutional latency approach identifies as governance form failure. Latency is most acute precisely where the informal norm layer is thick enough to generate strong community expectations but not codified enough to resolve contested claims about what those expectations require.

The 2017 Blocksize War (Bier, 2021) involved contested changes to consensus rules (the hard-coded block size limit) and activated both the formal rule layer and the informal norm layer simultaneously. It remains the more consequential governance event by most economic and political measures, producing a permanent chain split to Bitcoin Cash (Kwon et al., 2019), realigning community coalitions, and establishing precedents about the legitimate scope of protocol modification.

The relay default contest is not the only front this controversy has opened. By late-2025, a faction aligned with the monetary-only position had advanced a consensus layer proposal: a temporary USAF to cap the size of data-bearing fields at the validation level for a fixed term.^[4] Its merits aside, when the informal norm layer cannot settle a contested commitment, actors typically do not acquiesce; they escalate, attempting to manufacture a binding commitment at the one layer where that is possible – the consensus rules – or outward, into client migration and soft or hard forks. This is the exit-or-formalize pattern the transaction cost economics analysis of governance form predicts given Bitcoin’s institutional structure.

Blockchain rules and norms at various levels

Where the Blocksize War activated formal rule and informal norm layers simultaneously, the Core v30 versus Knots dispute activates only the informal norm layer, with no formal rule scaffolding to fall back on. The first was a hybrid governance crisis; the second is a result of the structural institutional latency I argue is endemic to permissionless protocol governance. Each side holds a position internally coherent yet indefensible to the other.

The Core maintainer position holds that relay policy has always been discretionary, that developer authority to set defaults is established by precedent, and that the expansion is a normal exercise of judgment. The Knots position holds that long-standing defaults have become de facto rules, that maintainer authority is conditioned on broad community legitimacy, and that the expansion violates the unwritten norms of Bitcoin development. Neither can be falsified by appeal to formal rules, which do not address the contested question, nor by appeal to precedent, which is itself interpretively contested. The v30 change also raises the cost of node operation for small independent node operators; many of the roughly 25,000 active nodes run on modest home hardware at their operators’ own expense, reflecting a commitment to personal responsibility and engagement in supporting the network.

The legal liability dimension

A subsidiary, but potentially important, strand of the Core v30 versus Knots dispute concerns the legal liability exposure of node operators and developers. Some Bitcoin developers and node operators argue that relay of copyrighted material, sanctioned content, CSAM, or defamatory information could create legal risks in certain jurisdictions, particularly if relay policies become increasingly discretionary. Whether these concerns reflect realistic legal exposure or a more precautionary interpretation of intermediary liability remains unresolved, but they have nevertheless contributed to some operators preferring Bitcoin Knots over Bitcoin Core.^[5] The implementation level decision that maintainers framed as a technical policy adjustment could, through the legal liability channel, become an operational level decision with potentially significant consequences for individual operators and, in aggregate, for the resilience of Bitcoin’s decentralized validation network.

The governance form problem in permissionless protocols

The Williamsonian analysis specifies why Bitcoin’s political and epistemic levels generate persistent institutional latency. The relevant categories are asset specificity, uncertainty, and frequency, the three attributes he identifies as primary determinants of governance form selection (Williamson, 1971, 1991).

Bitcoin’s political level governance transactions exhibit extreme values on all three. Asset specificity is high: political level commitments – what Bitcoin is for, who counts as a legitimate participant, what counts as a violation of community norms – are usually based on tightly-held epistemic values. A coalition’s coordination capacity and a developer’s accumulated technical authority – human capital – are assets whose value is largely specific to the Bitcoin governance context. Uncertainty is high: the consequences of political level decisions for the protocol’s long-term trajectory are highly uncertain, as the Blocksize War demonstrated. Frequency is low: political level decisions are episodic rather than routine. Each new dispute generates governance situations that are effectively novel.

The Williamsonian framework predicts that this combination demands hierarchical governance with formal dispute resolution mechanisms, intensive deliberation, bilateral commitment, and credible enforcement. In its absence, the predicted outcome is persistent governance deadlock. This institutional latency is precisely what Bitcoin exhibits at the political level, with deadlock, fragmentation, and the routing of disputes through exit (chain splits, client migration) rather than toward provisional settlement via deliberation.

The exit-only political level challenge

The governance form that Bitcoin actually provides at the political level is exit. Participants who disagree with Core’s decision can run a different client, fork the chain, or sell their holdings. Exit is real, costly, and consequential. It is also structurally inadequate for the governance transactions that political level disputes generate.

The governance problem is that exit, as the sole formally binding political level mechanism, is structurally unable to produce the outcomes that Bitcoin’s political level transactions require. Political level disputes about Bitcoin’s fundamental character are disputes about coordination equilibria; their resolution requires mechanisms for aggregating, expressing, and enforcing collective commitments. Exit can signal the strength of competing coalitions but cannot resolve the dispute between them. For that, deliberative governance mechanisms – processes through which competing political level commitments can be weighed, negotiated, and provisionally settled – would be required. Bitcoin’s architecture, however, provides no such mechanisms.

It is possible to argue that the market for governance commitments, expressed through fork adoption and client software choice, constitutes an adequate deliberative mechanism. Drawing on Williamson (Williamson, 2002, 2010), exit-as-deliberation may prove adequate for political level situations with moderate asset specificity and uncertainty but inadequate for situations with the extreme values both dimensions exhibit at Bitcoin’s political level. At extreme levels, the coordination costs of exit-based governance exceed its coordination benefits, and the result is persistent, irresolvable governance deadlock.

Implications for institutional latency and the stability-resilience question

Institutional latency from a stability-first perspective

The Williamsonian analysis illuminates why institutional latency is most durable at the informal norm layer. Institutional latency is not simply the speed gap between algorithmic execution and governance recognition capacity; it is the specific friction generated when governance transactions require governance forms that are structurally unavailable. At Bitcoin’s operational level, the available forms are broadly adequate and institutional latency is manageable. At the implementation level, informal norm governance is adequate to routine situations but can fail under stress, generating characteristic institutional latency spikes. At the political level, the governance form available – exit – is systematically inadequate, so institutional latency is structural and persistent.

Institutional latency at the political level cannot be resolved by faster recognition of incoming information at the implementation level. The latency is not an informational turnover problem; it is a governance form mismatch problem. Addressing it would require either changing the transactional attributes of political level situations (which would require changes to Bitcoin’s identity commitments that are themselves subject to the mismatch) or introducing governance mechanisms adequate to those transactions (which could require organizational forms Bitcoin’s architecture was explicitly designed to preclude).

Institutional latency from a sovereignty-first perspective

To this point the analysis evaluates governance form adequacy from a stability-first orientation (see Chapter 8), where the assumption is that governance arrangements should minimize transaction costs and maximize predictability. A sovereignty-first orientation also exists. Whereas New Institutional Economics and Keynesian/post-Keynesian positions align closely on stability-first governance outcomes, Ostrom’s polycentric governance tradition (Ostrom, 1999; Ostrom, 2010), the Old Institutional Economics (Hodgson, 2025), and Austrian Economics (Rothbard, 1977; Boettke and Coyne, 2023) emphasize self-governance, norms, routines, and trust-building, particularly when external drivers are breaking down the core conditions that stability-first governance requires.

If exogenous stability-first conditions are weakening irrespective of what Bitcoin does, then resilience-oriented practices of a sovereignty-first orientation may become transaction-cost-minimizing. Actors in a sovereignty-first world optimize for resilience and exit, not efficiency and voice. Governance form mismatch looks different depending on when that evaluative frame is applied: what appears as structural inadequacy from a stability-first perspective may appear to be prudent efforts to build adaptive resilience from a sovereignty-first one.

The governance form mismatch – exit as the sole formal binding mechanism where deliberation is demanded – poses a design question: not whether Bitcoin should adopt formal democratic institutions, which would contradict the architectural commitments that make it distinctive, but whether light-touch investments in deliberative capacity could strengthen the epistemic and political levels without requiring identity-based access controls or hierarchical authority.

Vincent Ostrom’s vision of Toquevillian self-governing societies (Ostrom, 1991, 1997, 1999) and Bromley’s (2006) insistence that institutional adequacy requires ongoing deliberation about what there is reason to want both point toward governance architectures that are richer than exit alone but lighter than centralized, regulated hierarchy. Whether such mechanisms can be designed for a permissionless environment – where the participant population is fluid, identities are pseudonymous, and enforcement depends on voluntary compliance rather than coercive authority – is an open and urgent question for Bitcoin governance research, as well as the broader study of informational turnover and the governance of rapidly-advancing technologies. The institutional latency framing provides the diagnostic vocabulary for specifying what such mechanisms would need to accomplish: reducing governance form mismatch at the political and epistemic levels without introducing the transaction costs and capture risks that formalization would entail.

Two high-priority information gaps

Economic acceptance settles a political level dispute

That exit is the sole formally binding mechanism at Bitcoin’s political level does not establish whether exit can aggregate into a binding settlement or only fragment Bitcoin. The metrics the debate relies on – the share of nodes running filters, the share signaling for a consensus-level proposal – measure the wrong quantity. Node count is a poor proxy for consensus power. What determines whether a node-enforced rule prevails is the distribution of economic settlement demand across enforcing and non-enforcing nodes; that includes the exchange flow, on-ramp volume, custodial holdings, stablecoin gateways, and merchant acceptance that give the coins on one chain their purchasing power.

The hypothesis is that the locus of consensus power is economic weight, not node count, so the Core v30/Knots dispute will resolve only if a coalition controlling a threshold share of economic settlement demand commits to enforcing one client’s policy, and will otherwise persist as a fragmented, unresolved disagreement irrespective of how the node counts move. The clearest evidence that economic weight rather than node count governs the outcome comes from the 2017 UASF, in which a very small fraction of nodes carried decisive weight because they included major exchanges, wallets, and merchants. Miners complied not because many nodes enforced the rule but because the enforcing nodes controlled enough of the market’s willingness to pay for coins that defection threatened their revenue. This implies a threshold: a level of economic acceptance above which coordinated exit resolves a dispute by making one chain the economically dominant asset, and below which exit simply fragments the network into coexisting assets. Locating that threshold, and measuring where the Core v30 versus Knots dispute sits relative to it, is the information the node tallies cannot supply.

Two approaches would fill the gap without a full formal model. The first would be a historical reconstruction across the available natural experiments – the 2017 soft fork activation, the abandoned SegWit2X effort, and the chain split that produced Bitcoin Cash – attributing economic settlement weight to enforcing and non-enforcing entities and testing whether compliance tracked economic weight rather than node count. The second would use structured survey elicitation: asking economic actors directly for the level of peer commitment at which they would begin enforcing a rule, which converts an assumption about beliefs into measured parameters. Even a qualitative mapping of the economic weight currently behind Knots relative to Core would advance the debate beyond the uninformative node tallies it now turns on.

Consensus power is a latent position rule that Bitcoin’s egalitarian boundary rules conceal. Permissionlessness confers no formal authority, yet economic weight produces a de facto position rule that determines whose exit threats bind. The mechanism also shows exit aggregating into a form of voice: at some threshold, coordinated exit threats become a quasi-deliberative instrument capable of producing the binding collective outcome that the chapter argues Bitcoin’s architecture otherwise lacks. This extends the exit-only claim: exit is atomistic and non-binding until economic weight concentrates and coordinates, at which point it becomes the system’s substitute for voice.

Legal liability exposure can reshape participation

The OP_RETURN expansion enlarges the one variable liability turns on: the volume of arbitrary, potentially unlawful data a relaying node passes on. Whether relaying copyrighted, sanctioned, or abusive material constitutes genuine liability exposure for intermediaries is contested and jurisdiction-dependent, but the doctrinal question is separable from the behavioral one, and it is the behavioral one that governs the protocol. Actors act on perceived exposure before any court resolves the merits, and that perception is itself an institutional force.

Its force is that both rational responses to it converge on the same outcome. An operator who fears liability can formalize – incorporate, route through a legal entity, select a jurisdiction – or withdraw, shutting down or retreating into anonymized operation. These move in opposite directions, toward more institutional structure and toward less, yet each erodes permissionless validation. Formalization reintroduces the hierarchical, capturable forms the architecture was built to exclude, while withdrawal thins the independent node base whose dispersion is what makes validation permissionless in the first place. Liability thus does not push the system one way; it narrows it from both ends, converting a policy adjustment at the implementation level into a contraction of the operational base. This is a distinct mechanism from the norm contest analyzed above, operating on the population of governing actors rather than on the rules they dispute.

It also unsettles the reading of client choice as values expression. If part of the migration to Knots is defensive risk management, the same act carries two incompatible meanings, and the signal at the political level is that the migration is partly noise from an operational level hedge. The dispute would then be, in some measure, a risk allocation problem wearing the costume of a value-based dispute; distinguishing the two is not a refinement of the evidence but a precondition for using it at all.

A research hypothesis follows: liability exposure, real or perceived, drives governance behavior independently of the values cleavage, and its effects are identifiable because the two diverge in their traces. Defensive actors relocate, anonymize, and interpose legal entities while professing no position on what Bitcoin is for, whereas values-driven actors do the reverse. The test is therefore to read maintainer affiliation, operator jurisdiction, and exit behavior across successive governance cycles against operators’ stated rationales, grounded in the intermediary-liability doctrine of the jurisdictions that matter. That the doctrine is unsettled is the reason research is needed, not an obstacle to it: the institutional consequences can be discerned through perception, on a timescale that courts can not match.

Conclusion

The Core v30 versus Knots dispute is a governance form failure, not a technical controversy. A contest over the expansion of an 83-byte default to 100,000 bytes has fractured the Bitcoin community and triggered measurable operator migration. Its significance, however, lies not in the technical outcome, which remains contested, but in where it sits within the informal norm layer, which North (1990) identifies as the most path-dependent institutional form and therefore the domain in which institutional latency operates most deeply. Bitcoin’s most durable governance layer is neither its code nor the formal legal environment that ostensibly governs it.

Institutional latency is not a speed problem, a function of increasingly high rates of algorithmic velocity: it is a governance form mismatch challenge. At the operational level, where algorithmic velocity is high and governance is computational – rule-following, deterministic, algorithmically enforceable – Bitcoin functions with reasonable institutional efficiency because the governance system’s capacity to keep pace with incoming information is adequate. Code is the law at the operational level, and institutional latency, while present, is manageable.

Above the operational level, governance becomes irreducibly volitional: it requires deliberation about purposes, values, and contested visions of what and who the protocol should be for. The informal norm layer is where institutional latency operates most deeply because informal norms are the primary institutional form through which volitional governance is conducted in permissionless systems, and they resist deliberate redesign in ways formal rules and computational protocols do not. Bitcoin’s characteristic governance friction at the implementation and political levels arises because the governance forms available at those levels are mismatched to the transactional attributes of the governance situations they face.

The political level governance form problem – exit as the sole formally binding mechanism for a class of governance transactions that require deliberation – is structurally irreducible in Bitcoin’s current exit-oriented governance system. At the epistemic level, where the question of what there is reason to want from the governance system itself is contested, the architecture provides no formal mechanism at all.

As algorithmic systems accelerate and expand computational intelligence, they simultaneously generate questions – about values, purposes, accountability, and institutional design – that no algorithm can resolve. The need for value-based volitional choice is therefore increasing at exactly the time that the supply of genuinely deliberative forms of governance, grounded in intelligent inquiry and the availability of voice, is not – and cannot – keep pace.

These propositions carry implications beyond Bitcoin. Institutional latency is observable in AI governance, automated financial markets, and the governance of any system whose informational velocity far exceeds the response capacity of the relevant governance system (e.g., Marchant et al., 2011; Russell, 2013; Grote and Berens, 2020; de Sá Vieira, 2026; Nguyen, 2026). Whereas Bitcoin’s permissionless architecture resolves governance form mismatch through decentralized exit and institutional fragmentation, AI governance may resolve the same mismatch in the opposite direction, toward centralized hierarchies, capital-intensive consolidation, and formalization of governance structures that Bitcoin’s architecture was specifically designed to preclude. Different institutional trajectories are thus likely.

The governance challenges of algorithmic velocity and informational turnover will not likely be resolved by faster legislation, smarter code, or more agile regulators alone, though all may contribute at the margin. They will be resolved, if they are resolved at all, by institutional arrangements adequate to the governance transactions they face. Institutional latency describes the structural condition of a world in which options about what to want are proliferating faster than the governance capacity to deliberate about them.

References

Akcora, CG, YR Gel and M Kantarcioglu 2022. Blockchain networks: data structures of Bitcoin, Monero, Zcash, Ethereum, Ripple, and Iota. WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 12: e1436. https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.1436

Ammous, S 2018. The Bitcoin Standard: The Decentralized Alternative to Central Banking. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.

Beaumier, G, K Kalomeni, M Campbell-Verduyn, et al. 2020. Global regulations for a digital economy: between new and old challenges. Global Policy 11: 515-522. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12823

Bibi, S 2025. Bitcoin, Central Bank Digital Currency and the loss of money value(s). Review of Political Economy: 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/09538259.2025.2456734

Bier, J 2021. The Blocksize War: The Battle Over Who Controls Bitcoin’s Protocol Rules: Independently published.

Boettke, PJ and CJ Coyne 2023. New thinking in Austrian Economics. Annual Review of Economics 15: 329-347. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-082322-021346

Böhme, R, N Christin, B Edelman, et al. 2015. Bitcoin: economics, technology, and governance. Journal of Economic Perspectives 29: 213-238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.29.2.213

Bouri, E, P Molnár, G Azzi, et al. 2017. On the hedge and safe haven properties of Bitcoin: is it really more than a diversifier? Finance Research Letters 20: 192-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2016.09.025

Bromley, DW 2006. Sufficient Reason: Volitional Pragmatism and the Meaning of Economic Institutions. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

De Filippi, P and B Loveluck 2016. The invisible politics of Bitcoin: governance crisis of a decentralised infrastructure. Internet Policy Review 5. https://doi.org/10.14763/2016.3.427

De Filippi, P and A Wright 2018. Blockchain and the Law: The Rule of Code. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

de Sá Vieira, A 2026. Algorithmic Hysteresis Primacy (AHP): temporal sovereignty in AI governance. SSRN preprint, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6229958

Dyhrberg, AH 2016. Hedging capabilities of bitcoin. Is it the virtual gold? Finance Research Letters 16: 139-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2015.10.025

Grote, T and P Berens 2020. On the ethics of algorithmic decision-making in healthcare. Journal of Medical Ethics 46: 205-211. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105586

Gstrein, OJ, N Haleem and A Zwitter 2024. General-purpose AI regulation and the European Union AI Act. Internet Policy Review 13. https://doi.org/10.14763/2024.3.1790

Hirschman, AO 1970. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hodgson, GM 2025. Formal and informal institutions: some problems of meaning, impact, and interaction. Journal of Institutional Economics 21: e1. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137424000249

Kang, C, J Woo and James W-K Hong 2025a. A comprehensive survey of Lightning Network technology and research. International Journal of Network Management 35: e70023. https://doi.org/10.1002/nem.70023

Kang, D, D Ryu and RI Webb 2025b. Bitcoin as a financial asset: a survey. Financial Innovation 11: 101. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-025-00773-0

Kwon, Y, H Kim, J Shin, et al. 2019. Bitcoin vs. Bitcoin Cash: coexistence or downfall of Bitcoin Cash? arXiv preprint, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1902.11064

Lepri, B, N Oliver, E Letouzé, et al. 2018. Fair, transparent, and accountable algorithmic decision-making processes. Philosophy & Technology 31: 611-627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-017-0279-x

Lessig, L 1999. The law of the horse: what cyberlaw might teach. Harvard Law Review 113: 501-549. https://doi.org/10.2307/1342331

Linus, R, L Aumayr, Z Avarikioti, et al. 2025. Bridging Bitcoin to second layers via BitVM2. Cryptology ePrint Archive preprint 2025/1158, https://eprint.iacr.org/2025/1158

Low, KFK and EGS Teo 2017. Bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies as property? Law, Innovation and Technology 9: 235-268. https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2017.1377915

Madaan, A, N Tandon, P Gupta, et al. 2023. Self-Refine: iterative refinement with self-feedback. arXiv preprint, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.17651

Marchant, GE, BR Allenby and JR Herkert (eds). 2011. The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight: The Pacing Problem. Dordrecht: Springer

Maris, V and A Béchet 2010. From adaptive management to adjustive management: a pragmatic account of biodiversity values. Conservation Biology 24: 966–973. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01437.x

Nakamoto, S 2008. Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Unpublished white paper, https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Narayanan, A, J Bonneau, E Felten, et al. 2016. Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Technologies. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Nguyen, T 2026. Temporal access failure: a structural risk in learning systems not addressed by current AI governance frameworks. SSRN preprint, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6091586

North, DC 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, E 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, E and V Ostrom 2004. The quest for meaning in public choice. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 63: 105-147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1536-7150.2004.00277.x

Ostrom, E 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Ostrom, E 2010. Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems. The American Economic Review 100: 641-672. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27871226

Ostrom, V 1991. The Meaning of American Federalism; Constituting a Self-Governing Society. San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies.

Ostrom, V 1997. The Meaning of Democracy and the Vulnerability of Democracies: A Response to Tocqueville's Challenge. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Ostrom, V 1999. Polycentricity (Part 1&2). In Polycentricity and Local Public Economies: Readings from the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, ed. MD McGinnis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.16061

Qi, M, Q Wang, Z Wang, et al. 2024. SoK: Bitcoin Layer Two (L2). arXiv preprint, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.02650

Rothbard, MN 1977. Praxeology: the methodology of Austrian Economics. In Foundations of Modern Austrian Economics, ed. E Dolan, 19-39. Kansas City: Sheed and Ward. https://mises.org/mises-daily/praxeology-methodology-austrian-economics

Rudd, MA 2000. Live long and prosper: collective action, social capital and social vision. Ecological Economics 34: 131-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00152-X

Rudd, MA 2004. An institutional framework for designing and monitoring ecosystem-based fisheries management policy experiments. Ecological Economics 48: 109-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.10.002

Rudd, MA 2010. A logic model for assessing the sustainability of Canadian oceans policy and management. In Ocean Yearbook 24, eds. A Chircop, S Coffen-Smout and M McConnell, 9-36. Leiden, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. http://www.brill.com/ocean-yearbook-24

Rudd, MA, M Dickey-Collas, J Ferretti, et al. 2018. Ocean ecosystem-based management mandates and implementation in the North Atlantic. Frontiers in Marine Science 5: 485. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00485

Russell, AW 2013. Improving legitimacy in nanotechnology policy development through stakeholder and community engagement: forging new pathways. Review of Policy Research 30: 566-587. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12037

Searle, JR 2005. What is an institution? Journal of Institutional Economics 1: 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137405000020

Selbst, AD 2020. Negligence and AI's human users. Boston University Law Review 100: 1315-1376. https://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/volume-100-number-4-september-2020/

Snell, C, J Lee, K Xu, et al. 2024. Scaling LLM test-time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling model parameters. arXiv preprint, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2408.03314

Wei, J, Y Tay, R Bommasani, et al. 2022. Emergent abilities of Large Language Models. arXiv preprint, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.07682

White, R, Y Marinakis, N Islam, et al. 2020. Is Bitcoin a currency, a technology-based product, or something else? Technological Forecasting and Social Change 151: 119877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119877

Williamson, OE 1971. The vertical integration of production: market failure considerations. The American Economic Review 61: 112-123. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1816983

Williamson, OE 1979. Transaction-cost economics: the governance of contractual relations. The Journal of Law and Economics 22: 233-261. https://doi.org/10.1086/466942

Williamson, OE 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: The Free Press.

Williamson, OE 1991. Comparative economic organization: the analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly 36: 269-296. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393356

Williamson, OE 1999. The Mechanisms of Governance. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Williamson, OE 2002. The theory of firm as governance structure: from choice to contract. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 16: 171–195. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3216956

Williamson, OE 2010. Transaction Cost Economics: the natural progression. The American Economic Review 100 673–690. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.3.673

Yermack, D 2024. Chapter 2 - Is Bitcoin a Real Currency? An Economic Appraisal. In Handbook of Digital Currency (Second Edition), ed. D Lee Kuo Chuen, 29-40. San Diego: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-98973-2.00014-9

Završnik, A 2021. Algorithmic justice: algorithms and big data in criminal justice settings. European Journal of Criminology 18: 623-642. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370819876762