A debate broke out among the Bitcoin community over a joint statement released by 31 Bitcoin Core developers on June 6th.
In their statement, the developers argued that while new transaction relay policies could lead to more non-financial use cases, protecting censorship resistance is one of the central tenets of blockchain.
The developers have said that the Bitcoin network is “defined by users with the ultimate freedom,” and chose whether to use blockchain for financial or non-financial use cases. As such, Bitcoin core developers are not trying to “obviate” the software or policies they have chosen.
Some bitcoiners disagree with the views of the developers, calling it a drift away from the original intended functionality of the blockchain. Meanwhile, some defended the developer’s perspective, leading to global debate among Bitcoiners.
Bitcoin transaction relations policy is at the heart of the debate
A transaction relay is a “core tent” of a Bitcoin node. The node relays block transactions and validation to other nodes to ensure that the blockchain remains updated on all nodes.
On May 5th, core contributors to the Bitcoin network announced that the next upgrade will remove the 80-byte data cap in the transaction relay. This allows users to embed larger data segments more efficiently, the post added:
“The longstanding cap has increased its usefulness, originally a mild signal that requires a modest use of space to prove non-payment of publication data.”
The developer claimed that users found a way around data restrictions. This can be harmful to your network. Thus, a massive inscription “abolishing deterrent forces that no longer deter” allows the rate market to “arbitrate competing demand.”
The announcement sparked debate considering the logical nature of the move, but others considered it an open invitation to spam transactions.
Bitcoin Core Developers Keep their Stance to Remove Data Limits in Transaction Relay
In a statement Friday, Bitcoin’s core developers defended their decision to remove the data cap in the transaction relay. They pointed out that it is their responsibility to ensure that their software is efficient and reliable, and that it is to contribute to Bitcoin’s success as a decentralized digital currency. They said:
“With regards to transaction relays, it includes adding a policy for denial of service (DOS) protection and rate assessments, but not blocking a relay for transactions that maintains economic demand and ensures that it is blocked.”
According to the developers, there are three main goals for transaction relays: This includes predicting which transactions will be mined. This also helps prevent denial-of-service (DOS) attacks. In DOS attacks, scoundrels flood the network with spam transactions, overwhelming the network and preventing transaction requests from legitimate users.
Additionally, transaction relays speed up transaction propagation and prevent large miners from gaining unfair benefits. It also helps miners learn about paid transactions, the developer noted. Therefore, they write:
“Anyway, if miners knowingly refuse to relay transactions contained in blocks, they will force users to an alternative communication channel, undermining the above goals.”
Moreover, the developer noted that Bitcoin node software should not intervene via a data cap where both transaction creators and miners agree to add large data inscriptions to the block. This, they explained, because Bitcoin was built on the spirit of censorship resistance, adding that large data transactions are “almost harmless at the technical level.”
However, the developer revealed:
“This does not approve or tolerate the use of non-financial data, but as a system that withstands censorship, Bitcoin can be used for use cases that no one agrees.”
While acknowledging the objections between Bitcoiners, they added that they sincerely believe the move will “in the greatest benefit of Bitcoin and its users.”
Bitcoiner splits transaction relay policy changes
Some who oppose the changes to the transaction relay policy are also known as Bitcoin core developers and Ocean Bitcoin mining pool creators Luke Dashul and Luke Kenneth Cathon Leighton. In the X post, DashJr pointed out:
“The goals of the listed transactional relations are basically all wrong. Predicting what is mined is the goal of centralization. Expecting spam to be mined is a defeat. Helping spam to propagate is harmful.”
He added that the statement portrays the abuse of blockchain as a legitimate use case through spam transactions, instead of treating it as a DOS attack. However, he believes that such a transaction is the same as a DOS attack.
The Pseudonym X user runs Bitcoin Knots, a special version of Bitcoin Core maintained by DashJR, and says, “New Relay Policy,” ideological drifting, known as:
“Core’s new stance essentially states that “use is effective when someone pays well.” It is economically naive and ignores the basic purpose of Bitcoin as a currency network. ”
Several Bitcoiners said policy changes are “absolutely bloated” including Dennis Porter, CEO of Bitcoin mining advocacy company Satoshi Action Fund. In a more rigorous post, one user wrote:
We keep in mind “buckets”, “bits”, and “general data stores” in mind, not “bits”. “Peer-to-peer electronic cache system.” ”
Users added that focusing the network on its original purpose is not censorship.
Opponents of the proposal include miners. One argued that deleting the data cap “will risk diluting Bitcoin’s financial focus, covering and concentrating future nodes, possibly threatening scalability and destroying the faith of the Bitcoin community.”
Jameson Lopp, co-founder and chief security officer of Bitcoin Wallet Casa, was one of the people who supported the developer’s statement:
“The core developers are a group that they can’t force them to run code they don’t like. Here’s the idea of relay policies and network health.”