BTC developer provokes public anger, and the inscription may disappear? "BTC Ecology"

*Original | Odaily

Edit | 0xAyA

BTC, the world’s most famous cryptocurrency has undergone numerous technical and philosophical debates since its inception. And just recently, the focus has shifted to the inscription. Luke Dashjr, Bitcoin Core developer and CTO of the Ocean mining pool, has launched a fierce criticism of inscriptions such as Ordinals and BRC-20 tokens: “The inscriptions are exploiting a vulnerability in Bitcoin Core to spam the blockchain. Since 2013, Bitcoin Core has allowed users to set limits on the size of extra data in their queues or mined transactions. By confusing their data into program code, the inscription bypasses this limitation”.

Luke argues that this behavior not only defeats the original intent of the BTC, but can also threaten the decentralization and security of the network. He added: "This bug was recently fixed in Bitcoin Knots v2 5.1. Since my workflow was severely disrupted at the end of last year (skipping the v24 version entirely), it took longer than usual. Bitcoin Core remains vulnerable in the upcoming v2 6 release. I can only hope that it will finally be fixed before the v27 release next year. ”

One stone stirred up a thousand waves, and people were arguing over Luke’s remarks. Of course, the main concern of the people who eat melons is whether the inscription can still exist, and one user asked: “I’m confused, please explain to me like a five-year-old: if this ‘bug/bug’ is fixed, does it mean that the inscription and the BRC-20 token will no longer exist?”

Luke replied, “Correct.”

Cosine, the founder of Slow Mist, pointed out that if all goes his way, BTC future version will fix what he thinks is a vulnerability: the serial number/inscription is a BTC vulnerability, which is a spam attack. But he also expressed his opinion: "Personally, I don’t feel the 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 bunch of spams, but also the activity of the BTC ecosystem, which is not just serial numbers/inscriptions. Of course, if this is patched, there can be compatible solutions to better open up the BTC ecosystem, and the long pain is better than the short pain. ”

In response to Luke’s remarks, it was pointed out that most miners would choose to mine the inscription trade because it made more economic sense. Luke responds that the BTC operates on the assumption that the ideology that most miners are honest, have no malice, and only pursue short-term profits is just another ideology, and a bad ideology.

Interestingly, Shenyu, the co-founder of F2 Pool, who is also the founder of the mining pool, has a completely different attitude towards Luke: “BTC is not ETH, and what the developer says doesn’t count”.

And more fierce critics are still on the way: “Satoshi Nakamoto is rolling in the grave, and people like Luke have become core developers.” ”

Proponents of the inscription naturally won’t let Luke go, with Udi Wertheimer, co-founder of the Ordinals project Taproot Wizards, saying, "Luke has made some sporadic contributions to open source BTC projects over the years, but he doesn’t own the chain. ”

Of course, Luke has no shortage of supporters, and in fact, Luke’s attitude largely represents the idea of some core developers in the BTC community, that is, to let the BTC retain its original value store meaning to the greatest extent, rather than build on it. According to core developer Erik Aronesty, "BTC’s primary goal may only be monetary use cases, rather than being the general ledger for everything in the world. It is possible to provide a permanent incentive for non-economic transactions to remain off-chain (L2). ”

And BTC OG @AurtrianAjian posted a long push in support of Luke: “Don’t worry, shitcoins won’t die, because you shitcoiners have always existed.” Where there’s demand, there’s supply, and you’ll find new casinos without BTC (and even BTC can’t shut you out). But that’s why I’m rooting for Luke, because you can go anywhere else. I would run Bitcoin Knots and no one is the master of the BTC network. ”

In any case, the controversy over the inscription still revolves around the core question that has been debated since the day BTC was born: what should be the trade-off between innovation and core principles? As an open-source and decentralized network, anyone BTC be encouraged to innovate and create on top of it, but similarly, any innovation and creativity will inevitably be scrutinized and even opposed by the community.

Is there a way to effectively incorporate a whimsy like an inscription without fundamentally affecting the BTC?BTC L2 is a good idea, but there are many more possibilities for developers and the community to explore.