Over the past few months, it feels like technical discussions in Bitcoin increasingly turn into philosophical ones. What starts as a proposal about code or block space often becomes a debate about “what Bitcoin is supposed to be.”

Is Bitcoin simply neutral infrastructure — where anything valid under consensus rules is fair game?

Or does Bitcoin have a deeper purpose that should influence what we consider healthy or harmful usage?

On one side, neutrality is powerful. Bitcoin doesn’t judge transactions. It doesn’t care about intent. If it follows the rules, it gets mined.

On the other side, some argue that not all usage aligns with Bitcoin’s long-term mission. That certain patterns strain resources or distort incentives — and that protocol changes are sometimes necessary to protect its core design.

So here’s the real question:
At what point does protecting Bitcoin become shaping Bitcoin?

And who ultimately decides where that line is drawn — miners, developers, node runners, users… or the market itself?

I’m genuinely curious how others here think about this. Is Bitcoin strongest when it remains purely neutral? Or when the community actively defends a specific vision?

Looking forward to thoughtful perspectives.