Original - Odaily
Edit - 0xAyA
Bitcoin, the worlds most famous cryptocurrency, has experienced countless technical and philosophical debates since its birth. Just recently, the focus of attention has turned to inscriptions. Bitcoin Core developer and Ocean mining pool CTO Luke Dashjr has launched a scathing criticism of Inscription for its use of Ordinals and BRC-20 tokens: “Inscription is exploiting a vulnerability in Bitcoin Core to spam the blockchain. Since 2013 , Bitcoin Core allows users to set limits on the size of additional data in their queues or mined transactions. Inscription circumvents this limit by obfuscating their data into program code.
Luke believes that this behavior not only violates the original intention of Bitcoin, but may also threaten the decentralization and security of the network. He added: “This bug was recently fixed in Bitcoin Knots v2 5.1. It’s taking longer than usual due to my workflow being severely disrupted late last year (skipping the v24 version entirely). Bitcoin Core will be released soon Its still vulnerable in v2 6. I can only hope its finally fixed before v27 next year.
One stone stirred up a thousand waves, and people were arguing over Lukes remarks. Of course, the biggest concern among people who eat melons is whether the inscription can still exist. One user asked: I am confused, please explain to me like a five-year-old child: If this bug/loophole is fixed , does it mean that inscriptions and BRC-20 tokens will no longer exist?”
Luke replied, Correct.
SlowMist founder Yu Xian pointed out that if everything goes as he (Luke) wants, subsequent versions of Bitcoin will fix the loopholes he thinks: the serial number/inscription is a loophole in Bitcoin and a Spam attack. But he also expressed his opinion: I personally feel that there is no need to fix this. The impact of accidentally opening this magic box due to the introduction of Taproot (a good thing) is not only a pile of Spam, but also the activity of the Bitcoin ecosystem. There is more to this ecosystem than just serial numbers/inscriptions. Of course, if this is fixed, there can be compatibility solutions to better open up the Bitcoin ecosystem, and the long-term pain will be worse than the short-term pain.
In response to Lukes comments, it was pointed out that most miners would choose to mine for inscription trading because it makes more economic sense. Luke responded that the ideology that Bitcoin operates on the assumption that most miners are honest, have no ill intentions, and only pursue short-term profits is just another ideology, and a bad one.
Interestingly, Shenyu, who is also the founder of the mining pool and co-founder of F2 Pool, had a completely different attitude towards Luke’s remarks: “BTC is not ETH, and the developer’s decision does not count.”
And more fierce critics are still on the way: Satoshi Nakamoto is rolling in his grave, and people like Luke have become core developers.
Inscription supporters will naturally not let Luke go. Udi Wertheimer, co-founder of Ordinals project Taproot Wizards, said: Luke has made some sporadic contributions to the open source Bitcoin project over the years, but he does not own the chain.
Of course, Luke does not lack supporters. In fact, Luke’s attitude largely represents the thoughts of some core developers in the Bitcoin community, which is to allow Bitcoin to retain its original value storage significance to the greatest extent, rather than built on top of it. Core developer Erik Aronesty said: Bitcoins main goal may only be monetary use cases, rather than becoming the general ledger of everything in the world. It can provide a permanent incentive mechanism for non-economic transactions to keep them off-chain (L2 ).
And Bitcoin OG@AurtrianAjianThen published a long tweet to support Luke: Dont worry, shitcoins will not die, because you shitcoiners will always exist. Where there is demand, there will be supply. If there is no Bitcoin, you will find new casinos (even on Bitcoin) I can’t ban you). But for that reason, I support Luke, because you can go elsewhere. I will run Bitcoin Knots, and no one is the master of the Bitcoin network.”
In any case, the controversy arising from the inscription this time still revolves around the core issue that has been debated since the birth of Bitcoin: How to choose between innovation and core principles? As an open source and decentralized network, Bitcoin encourages anyone to innovate and create on it, but similarly, any innovation and creation will inevitably be scrutinized or even opposed by the community.
Is there a way to effectively incorporate fancy ideas like inscriptions without affecting Bitcoin on a fundamental level? BTC L2 is a good idea, but more possibilities are still worth exploring together by developers and the community.
