Original - Odaily
Author - Nan Zhi
Bitcoin Core developers want to kill Inscription?
At 9 a.m. today, Bitcoin Core developer Luke Dashjr spoke on the X platformPost a message to express: “Inscription is exploiting a vulnerability in the Bitcoin Core client to spam the blockchain. Since 2013, Bitcoin Core has allowed users to set additional data size limits when relaying or mining transactions (-datacarriersize). Inscription circumvents this limitation by obscuring its data into program code. This vulnerability was recently fixed in Bitcoin Knots V25.1. My workflow was severely disrupted due to late last year (V24 was Completely skipped), the fix is taking longer than usual. Bitcoin Core is still vulnerable in the upcoming V26 release. I can only hope that it will be finally fixed before V27 next year.
It is not difficult to see that in Lukes eyes, the inscriptions that have been so popular recently are essentially bugs. Regarding Luke’s remarks and judgment, there are also the following key points worthy of attention:
What will happen to Ordinals after the fix?
Luke：Ordinals and BRC-20 will cease to exist。Achieved by setting the data carrier size to zero。
What is -datacarriersize?
In Bitcoin transactions, OP_RETURN is a script opcode,It allows to append some data to the transaction. -datacarriersize allows setting an upper limit on the payload size of the OP_RETURN opcode. By default, the data carrier size of Bitcoin Core nodes is limited to 80 bytes. By using -datacarriersize,This limit can be changed to allow larger payloads. This is a bug in Luke Dashjrs opinion and needs to be fixed.
Is there a specific date for Bitcoin Core v2 7?
There is no firm date yet, so even if a decision is made to revise it, it wont happen in the near future.
What impact will it have on regular Bitcoin holders?
What other protocols will be affected?
According to Bitcoin ecosystem developers@wooooer saidAfter studying Lukes code in knots, he discovered some key details. Luke set two main parameter restrictions in knots for filtering so-called fraudulent Bitcoin transactions:
datacarriersize This parameter mainly limits the size of data carried by OP_RETURN, that is, those that write data in the output part of UTXO. If this restriction is enabled, affected protocols will include:Colored coins、OmniLayer、Runeswait.
maxscriptsize This parameter limits the TaprootScript-based inscription protocol, whose data is engraved in the UTXOs witness field. If this restriction takes effect, affected agreements will includeOrdinals、BRC-20 wait.
Wooooer further stated that if Luke’s opinions are finally implemented, the default limit values of these two parameters may result in only the smallest footprint on the chain remaining in the Bitcoin ecosystem.Taproot Asset and RGB。
Community Opinion: Opposition is invalid, support ecology and let a hundred flowers bloom.
Bitcoin is dominated by non-developers
Shenyu: Bitcoin is not Ethereum, and developers have no say. The upgrade requires miners to vote. If they object, the upgrade will not be possible unless a fork is carried out. (Note: F2Pool ranks third in Bitcoin computing power, with Foundry USA ranking first and AntPool ranking second.)
for someoneuser comment“But most miners will choose to record inscription transactions because it makes more economic sense,” but Luke himself thinks: “Bitcoin operates under the assumption that most miners are honest and have no malicious intent.。Your ideology of only pursuing short-term profits is just another ideology, and a bad one at that.”, that is, he believes thatMiners will not accept the transaction because the inscription indicates malicious behavior.。
There is a three-party game, but the fork has never really subverted Bitcoin.
Founder of BV DAOChen Mo：Bitcoin core developers believe that Inscription is a bug, and the fix in the next version means that BRC-20 will disappear. Inscription’s vested interests believe that the developer’s words don’t count, and if it doesn’t work, the miners will fork. In fact, it is the butt that determines the head. In the Bitcoin world structure, there are checks and balances among miners, developers, and capital. It is difficult to say who has the real say. There have been many forks of Bitcoin in history, and many have been supported by miners, but in fact there has always been only one BTC. Inscription ecological miners are indeed relatively large beneficiaries, so there is a high probability that they hope that Inscription will continue to exist, but whether capital is really willing to pay for Inscription is another matter, but from another perspective, whether the Inscription army can really create an ecologically prosperous What about Bitcoin forks?
Taproot brings vitality to the Bitcoin ecosystem
slow mist cosine: I personally feel that there is no need to fix this. Due to the introduction of Taproot (a good thing), the impact of accidentally opening this magic box is not only a pile of Spam, but also the activeness of the Bitcoin ecosystem. This ecosystem is not just about serial numbers/inscriptions. This set.
In summary, the main voice in the community is still optimistic about the Bitcoin ecosystem, believing that Ordinals has opened up a new channel for development and will continue to develop driven by the interests of multiple parties.
summary
In fact, the FUD has never stopped since the birth of Ordinals;PoW inventor Adam Back instigated an attack on Ordinals in February；LukeHe said in May thatOrdinals are worthless(worthless); JA N3 CEO Samson Mow said,The latest hype surrounding Bitcoin Ordinals and BRC-20 tokens is unsustainable, and will disappear within a few months.
How the Bitcoin ecosystem develops cannot be said in one word. It still requires efforts from many parties. However, history always spirals. These FUDs have never stopped the progress of Ordinals, but have further prospered and developed, evolving to multiple protocols and multiple chains. Expanding, the ecological spring of Bitcoin will continue.
