The debate about the purpose of Bitcoin has risen and derives from direct wars that affect even new institutional actors. As reported by Cryptonotics, the Bitcoin Nodes Main client, which is about 30 developers of Bitcoin Core, has issued a statement regarding its policy for resubmission of software transactions.
Among them, they are attributed to users of the network. Absolute freedom to implement a protocol that uses the protocol they want,Even if these deviate from Bitcoin’s original purpose, they become decentralized money systems.
The thick part of the community is critical of this statement and lays the foundation. and for war of similar scale Block war, Or the war of the size of the Bitcoin block that took place between 2015 and 2017.
Bitcoin Core doesn’t want to intervene
Based on the ethical and negative defenses of decentralization within the network, Bitcoin Core signatories comment that it is not their job to “block retransmissions of transactions that have sustained economic demand and become reliable blocks.” In other words, if some network users decide to use Bitcoin as any data storage system (inscription, or JPG images, text, video, etc.), they think they will use Bitcoin Core. Spreading of these transactions is not impossible through strict policy on node use.
Bitcoin is a user-defined network that has the maximum degree of freedom (with or without full verification) to select the software to use, and implements the required policies. Bitcoin Core Collaborators cannot impose what they are.
31 Bitcoin Core Signer, the most used Bitcoin Node client.
Core acknowledges that one of the purposes of the software is to discourage Bitcoin usage cases, which use network block space inefficiently. However, they are believers who believe that “alien” forms that use networks will disappoint This is only possible if users and miners maintain consensus on Bitcoin network use cases. “If this is no longer the case and economically viable use cases contradict political rules, users and miners can work directly to avoid external attempts to impose restrictions on their activities,” they comment from Bitcoin Core.
Core developers don’t want to intervene in user preferences It also does not rule out transactions to consider them to be abnormalespecially when users send them and pay, and miners are willing to process them and include them in the block.
With that in mind, the core developer agrees to:
Bitcoin node software is better to try and have a realistic idea of what will end in the next block, in order to discourage the authors and miners of agreeing transactions from almost harmless activities at the technical level.
31 Bitcoin Core Signer, the most used Bitcoin Node client.
They claim they accept Bitcoin rather than approving the use of non-financial data. This is a censorship resistant system that can be used “for use cases that no one agrees with.”
What makes critics with Bitcoin cores different is that the non-monetary use of Bitcoin is “almost harmless on a technological level.”
Problem: 80-byte filter and limitation for op_return transactions
There is a debate within Bitcoin core that can be resolved by eliminating the 80-byte limit for op_return transactions. Some users reflected that this limit had been swept in May without launch notes or prior notice, but critical maintenance on Bitcoin Core was made to reject information. However, Bitcoin Core Allows relaxation of this limit from version V30According to the same developer, it will be released in October.
Starting with V30, Bitcoin Core allows OP_Return transactions by default at 80 bytes and multiple Op_return exits without impose the strict 83 bytes limit that has existed so far. However, users can still configure it manually –DataCarriersize Limit the size as needed.
op_return is a OPCODE (Operational Code) A small amount of arbitrary data can be embedded in a transaction without spending, i.e. without representing transferable funds. As reported by Cryptootics, the op_return transaction They are 443 times increase About January/April in May. In May, a total of 13,000 OP_return operations occurred, exceeding 83 bytes.
The 80-byte limit was a measure to use Bitcoin usage as a non-financial data deposit and prioritize its function as a payment system. Eliminating this limit means that non-monetary transactions can take up more block space within the network. For these, Without that limit, Bitcoin block supports spam And it can lead to exclusion or descaling of financial transactions.
This increase in op_return transactions and intentions is still in the air and warns critics to expand the block space specialized for these. This measure is a candid attack on Bitcoin and its financial nature.
Criticism of Bitcoin Core
The reason they recognize Bitcoin Core activity as an attack on currency is because they see BTC The only chance of getting away.”Money tyranny fíat, Money that has unlimited supply and tends to inflation, whether it is a dollar, euro, pound, or yen. They believe that if Bitcoin deviates from their initial financial objectives, their technical foundations will weaken and cannot withstand the global adoption of the currency.
For example, let’s say thousands of users decide to create transactions on the Bitcoin network, both financially and nonprofits. What if the node resend policy is too free? Encourage miners to prioritize registered transactions? Bitcoin block space will not be occupied, Demotion of financial transactions,Who experiences very confirmation time? this,Bitcoin is not inefficient as a payment network?
This hypothetical case relatively demonstrates critics’ concerns about the highly acceptable Bitcoin Core transaction retransmission policy in op_return transactions.
What do Bitcoin Core Critics say about the text?
Samson Mow, the well-known CEO of Jan3, has expressed negative comments about “relaxation against spam,” which indicates a policy for resending Bitcoin core transactions.
Bitcoin core developers are gradually changing their networks to facilitate spam, and appear to be focusing on eliminating spammer barriers. Simply saying, “That’s what I’m sorry about” is misleading (…).
Samson Mow, CEO de Jan3.
Knot driver Luke Dashul, Bitcoin client, actively including filters to reduce non-monetary transactions in Bitcoin, commented Minen Spam Miners Passively Hopefully Be “Defeatist”. DashJR criticizes the trend that Bitcoin’s core developers will respond to the demands of users and miners for registration. He also redefines some of the terms included in Bitcoin core statements.
(The Statement) presents spam as “largely harmless” when reality is exactly the opposite. It treats nodes as a legal “case of use” rather than blockchain abuse and two actual attacks.
Luke Dashjr, Mantenedor The Bitcoin Kots.
Other critics point to the centralized nature of the Bitcoin core statement.
Bitcoin maximalist Giacomo Zucco commented on:
How do websites describing decentralized open source development have been discrete about a variety of topics over the years and inviting public statements on this topic? Who are “us”? Only signers of the declaration? Second, should we assume that a small number of collaborators of disagreement may sign another statement and that the website simply publishes it? Alternatively, the site should be considered the voice of a formal organization with clear governance and distinguishing between the amorphous mass of external collaborators of Bitcoin Core.
Data Day, Bitcoin maximalist.
Another user mentions that Bitcoin Core should not publish official announcements for this class, as it represents only 31 developers when hundreds of people contributed with Bitcoin Core. Meanwhile, another Bitcoin maximalist dared to say it Bitcoin currently has the Ethereum Foundationand sent a message to Bitcoin’s Treasury companies.
Cryptonoticias has continued to debate and has now turned into the open war featured in this article. He is regularly updated on Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Knot adoption figures. He wrote an editorial note on the subject and proposed that this discussion at Bitcoin’s technical core is positive for network decentralization.
Nevertheless, the debate quickly rose, and the level of criticism of Bitcoin core on social networks is not a recent precedent.
The weather around Bitcoin’s technical core is rare. Does this mean that there are strong changes to network protocols coming? Is it almost likely that which Bitcoin core will lose mass adoption (Knot already runs 11% of the nodes), or more unlikely than Bitcoin’s hard fork (hard fork)?
All scenarios are possible. For now, the impact of this debate is limited to differences between Bitcoin node customers, far from the network consensus rules.
