"The inscriptions are all spam information, and they should not exist technically", is it reasonable BTC the "cleanliness fetish" of the core developers?

Original | Odaily Planet Daily

Author | Southern citrus

Bitcoin Core Developers Want to Eradicate Inscriptions?

At 9 a.m. today, BTC Bitcoin Core developer Luke Dashjr posted on Platform X: "Inion is using a vulnerability in Bitcoin Core, BTC core client, to spam blockchains. Since 2013, Bitcoin Core has allowed users to set an additional data size limit (‘-datacarriersize’) when relaying or mining transactions. By obfuscating its data into program code, the inscription bypasses this restriction. This vulnerability was recently fixed in Bitcoin Knots V25.1. Since my workflow was severely disrupted at the end of last year (V24 was skipped entirely), the fix took longer than usual. In the upcoming V26 release, Bitcoin Core still has vulnerabilities. I can only hope that it will get a final fix before V27 next year. ”

It’s not hard to see that, in Luke’s eyes, the nature of the inscription that has recently been wildly sought after is a bug. Regarding Luke’s remarks and judgments, there are also the following important points to note:

What happens to Ordinals after the fix?

Luke: Ordinals and BRC-20 will no longer exist. This is achieved by setting the data carrier size to zero.

‘

What is ‘-datacarriersize’?

In BTC transaction, OP_RETURN is a script opcode that allows some data to be attached to the transaction. ‘-datacarriersize’ allows you to set an upper limit on the payload size of the OP_RETURN opcode. By default, the data carrier size of BTC Core node is limited to 80 bytes. By using -datacarriersize, this limit can be changed to allow for larger payloads. This seems to Luke Dashjr to be a bug that needs to be fixed. Is there a specific date for Bitcoin Core v2 7?

There is no definite date, so even if a decision is made to revise it, it will not happen in the near future. What is the impact on BTC regular holders?**

Luke: It affects the efficiency and integrity of the blockchain, which in turn indirectly affects security and value.

What other protocols will be affected?

According to BTC ecosystem developer @wooooer, after studying Luke’s code in knots, some key details were discovered, and Luke set two main parameter limits in knots for filtering so-called BTC fraudulent transactions:

• datacarriersize is a parameter that mainly limits the size of the data carried by OP_RETURN, i.e. those that write data to the output part of the UTXO. If this restriction is enabled, affected protocols will include: Colored coins, OmniLayer, Runes, etc.
• maxsize This parameter restriction is based on Taproot’s inscription protocol, and its data is engraved in the witness field of the UTXO. If this restriction goes into effect, the affected protocols will include Ordinals, BRC-20, etc.

wooooer further stated that if Luke’s comments are ultimately implemented, the default limits for these two parameters could result in only Taproot Assets and RGBs remaining in the BTC ecosystem that occupy the smallest on-chain footprint.

Community opinion: oppose ineffective, support the ecology of a hundred flowers

BTC non-developer-led

Shenyu: BTC it’s not a ETH shop, what the developer said doesn’t count. Upgrades require miner votes, and if they are opposed, they cannot be upgraded unless they are forked. (Note: F2Pool ranks third in BTC computing power, with Foundry USA in first place and AntPool in second.) ）

In response to one user’s comment that “but most miners would choose to record inscription transactions because it makes more economic sense”, Luke himself said: “The BTC operates on the assumption that most miners are honest and have no malicious intent.” Your ideology of pursuing only short-term profits is just another ideology, and a bad ideology**", i.e., they believe that miners will not accept the deal because the inscription is malicious.

There is a three-way game, but the fork has never really upended BTC

Chen Mo, founder of BV DAO: Bitcoin core developers think that the inscription is a bug, and the next version of the fix means that BRC-20 will disappear. In fact, it is the ass that decides the head, and in the world pattern of Bitcoin, there are three checks and balances between miners, developers, and capital, and it is difficult to say who is the real right to speak. Historically BTC there have been many forks, and many have been supported by miners, but in reality there has always been only one BTC. The inscription ecological miner is indeed a relatively large beneficiary, so it is likely that the inscription will continue to exist, but whether the capital is really willing to pay for the inscription is another matter, but from another angle, can the inscription army really do a BTC fork of ecological prosperity?

Taproot has brought BTC ecosystem to life

Slow Mist Cosine: Personally, I don’t think there’s any need to tinker with this, as the impact of accidentally opening this box due to the introduction of Taproot (a good thing) is not only a bunch of spams, but also the activity of the BTC ecosystem, which is not just a set of serial numbers/inscriptions.

In summary, the main voice of the community is still optimistic about the BTC ecology, believing that the inscriptions (Ordinals) have opened up a new channel for development and will continue to develop under the joint drive of multiple interests.

Summary

In fact, FUD hasn’t stopped since the birth of Ordinals, with PoW inventor Adam back instigating attacks on Ordinals in February, Luke saying in May that Ordinals are worthless, and JA N3 CEO Samson Mow saying around BTC Ordinals and BRC-20 The latest hype for the token is unsustainable and will disappear in a few months.

How the BTC ecosystem develops is not a word, and it still needs to be wrestled with many parties, but history always spirals upward, and these FUDs have never stopped Ordinals from moving forward, but have further prospered, evolved to multiple protocols, and expanded to multiple chains, BTC the ecological spring will continue.