Poisoning the Bitcoin block

Regarding the topic of Bitcoin Core maintainers lifting the data size limit for OP_RETURN in the new version, the teaching chain has discussed this multiple times.

Now, just as the Core v30.0rc1 candidate version is released, someone has successfully demonstrated how to use the OP_RETURN instruction in BTC transfer transactions to inject malicious data into the Bitcoin block, once again raising alarms for the community.

Well, it's the real "poison" — computer viruses. DOS, Windows, Mac...

You can verify it yourself: open any Bitcoin block explorer, such as mempool.space. Enter the transaction ID 85f1bf57386ff71f9e7cde9f6fc347065fa34e95389712fdc2b2fcb205273d8f to find the transaction located at block height 913937. Click on it. This transaction has no other content, just an example of OP_RETURN carrying malicious software code.

Developer Peter Todd quoted a comment from netizen @GrassFedBitcoin: "Things will develop like this:"

1. 100KB of OP_RETURN data will become the standard

2. Some people inevitably broadcast content that triggers malware detection.

3. All Bitcoin cloud infrastructure was forced offline.

4. Major Interruption - Exchange / Mining Pool Offline

5. Due to the inability to remove problematic data through a hard fork, panic has led to the emergence of temporary remedial measures.

6. The nearly completely centralized template mining pools are lobbied to run custom filters to screen future data (why not directly reject forwarding such data by maintaining the original data carrier size limit?)

7. The already difficult task of decentralized mining is made even harder.

8. Running nodes has become a high-risk activity, requiring additional software to maintain a clean memory pool.

9. We have become a data storage network that only accepts approved data, rather than the original currency network that rejected arbitrary data.

Perhaps the only thing we can do now is to wait and see if anyone will take advantage of the low network fees to poison the Bitcoin blockchain at will, testing whether there is an opportunity to trigger a widespread backlash from antivirus software, which could lead to a large-scale offline of nodes and network paralysis.

Perhaps we should accept and even encourage various attempts at improvement, but we still need to consider the costs in advance.

Any data written to the block will permanently exist with the existence of the block. Storing a large amount of junk or even harmful data occupies the storage space of each full node, and the trial-and-error process cannot be reversed, as historical data cannot be deleted. Isn't this cost a bit too high?

Humans have a characteristic of loving to explore limits. One does not give up until reaching the Yellow River. One does not turn back until hitting the south wall.

If it weren't for gravity holding people firmly to the ground, everyone would ascend to the sky.

Only the constraints of the laws of cosmic physics and the forces of materialism can limit humanity from overstepping. It's not that one does not want to, but rather that one cannot.

Perhaps this is the biggest difference between PoW (Proof of Work), which has this physical constraint, and other consensus mechanisms that rely on human rules.