Luke Dashjr proposal rejected, where does the controversy go?

Author: ChainFeeds

On January 7, the proposal "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying #28408" initiated by Bitcoin Core client developer Luke Dashjr was rejected after discussion by many Bitcoin Core developers. The proposal was proposed by Luke Dashjr in September 2023 andthe main goal is to update the Bitcoin Core software so that it can effectively use newer data carrying methods to limit the development of inscriptions.

After reading multiple comments on the proposal, ChainFeeds compiled a summary of the views of supporters and opponents, includingSupporters They mainly highlighted the current congestion problems faced by the Bitcoin networkespecially the poor state of the mempool and the increasing number of spam transactions caused by Inscription transactions. Opponents argue that the proposal does not effectively solve the spam problem because miners are unlikely to adopt this strategy due to income issues. In addition, the controversy also concerns the complexity of the implementation of the proposal and the code complexity it may bring.

Supporters

Supporters believe that the proposal has nothing to do with the inscription itself; Related to the network congestion it causes. Bitcoin node Léo Haf pointed out, "The current state of the memory pool is very bad. The number of spam transactions has exceeded 200,000, and it seems that the number is still rising. These spam transactions have seriously hindered the practical application of Bitcoin." Inscription utilizes < strong>Security issues are also the main argument of supporters. This vulnerability will not only lead to increased fees and longer transaction processing times, but may also become a potential vector for DDoS attacks. In addition, thedegree of decentralization of the network will also be affectedas nodes with fewer computing resources may struggle to meet growing demand, resulting in a more centralized network topology. Another worrying trend is thatif too much and too large data continues to be stored on the Bitcoin chain, it is likely that after a certain point, most block files will only contain endless BRC-20 json data.

From the perspective of network participants,First of all, users face high fees while owning a certain amount of Bitcoins. , which essentially blocks its normal access to the network. Secondly, for nodes, these transactions increase the node’s operating costs but do not add any added value to Bitcoin itself. Finally, there is no benefit to inscriptions for small miners, as censorship of these transactions will only encourage the development of private mempools.

On the other hand, supporters also argue thatthis proposal only limits the amount of data carried in OP_RETURN, which has always been -datacarriersize "Intention". Supporter wizkid057 said, "Spam filtering has been done at different levels of the code for over a decade, and all this PR does is apply the existing datacarriersize limit to another form of data transfer."

Opponents firmly believe that the proposalcannot effectively solve the spam problem< /strong>. First,miners are unlikely to adopt this strategy,because miners using updated versions of Bitcoin Core with this PR will lose a significant amount of fees. Ordinals founder Casey Rodarmor pointed out that in the past ten months, Inscription transactions have generated at least more than $100 million in transaction fees.

Bitcoin developer Sjors Provoost emphasized, "If only Ocean Pool uses this PR, then it will not have any impact on the entire system. And if it is widely adopted , evasion will become easy and lead to more complex code."

Bitcoin Optech contributor Murch believes that although the inscription is stupid, it is not the same as in the block Inscriptions have less negative impacton the use of the witness area than other ways of embedding data in the chain. But there is a problem, The patch of this PR does not prevent the Inscription relay from running. Inscription supporters can still keep the relay running by ensuring that a small number of nodes on the network do not filter Inscription. Moreover, miners who choose to filter inscriptions will receive less income, and eventually miners running the patch will still process blocks that include inscriptions. So he felt the PR change would do more harm than good.

Of course, whether code can be written to detect embedded data has also become an important point of debate. Blockstream developer Lisa Neigut said that adding filters to exclude Ordinals transactions from Bitcoin is a fairly complex approach.

In the end, Bitcoin Core developer Ava Chow closed the PR and said that under the current circumstances, it is difficult to come up with a proposal that satisfies everyone. Conclusion, so there is no need to continue the discussion. Luke Dashjr has been criticizing Inscription since November last year, but in fact,His negative views on Inscription mainly stem from concerns about the potential risks of the Bitcoin main network, and are not intended to completely eradicate Inscription. It can also be seen from the proposal that Luke Dashjr expects that most nodes will comply with this PR, and does not exclude mining pools from being willing to package inscription data. Although it will bring some inconvenience to the user experience, but it will also It may lead to some development opportunities for Bitcoin Layer 2.