A discussion on BTC "hardware upgrade" has caused a stir in the Bitcoin core development circle

What exactly did this statement say?

• Bitcoin Core wants to push its own built-in transaction relay.

• I believe this transaction relay is paving the way for the previous cancellation of OP-Return.

Why would this spark extensive discussion?

It's because there's a backstory behind the story - two years ago, inscriptions began to flourish,but these inscriptions and runes were secretly stored in the OP-Return area of Bitcoin blocks through a "bug exploitation" method, thereby indirectly breaking through Bitcoin's block limit.

As a result, Bitcoin is now divided into right-wing and extreme right-wing factions.

• Inscriptions irritated the extreme right-wing, so under Luke's call,the second-ranked Bitcoin client Knots launched a garbage filter that directly treats these inscription transactions as trash transactions and refuses to package them.If you recall, this even caused Ordi to plummet.

• But the ordinary right-wing, namely the Bitcoin Core group, believed that since inscriptions could already exploit bugs to go on-chain, it's better to legitimize them. So in recent months, Core proposed a new PRto change OP-Return from 80KB to unlimited, essentially removing restrictions on inscriptions and allowing them to go on-chain openly.

Although inscriptions have been mostly poured out, I believe this is somewhat of an additional subsidy to miners, as earning more can make the Bitcoin network more secure.

After discussing the background's "background", let's talk about what this "transaction relay" actually is.

In theory,Bitcoin is a P2P network, meaning all miners are directly connected to each other.However, this is theoretically the safest approach, and since the current network environment is quite secure, there's no need to be so absolute.

Thus, "transaction relay" emerged. Everyone can first send transactions to the relay (note: it's voluntary), which has two major benefits:

1. Helps prevent DoS attacks,those transactions with zero fees won't overwhelm miners' point-to-point servers;

2. Accelerate block propagation speed,reducing latency helps prevent large miners from gaining unfair advantages.

It's actually a good thing

In the past, transaction relays had different strategies, some strictly filtering garbage transactions, others completely free.

PS: I don't think this is transaction censorship; it's more about filtering garbage transactions, and users can choose not to use these functions.

Actually, the right-wing (Core group) and extreme right-wing (Luke and others) both have demands to filter garbage transactions,but the core contradiction is that everyone defines garbage transactions completely differently.

• Extreme right-wingbelieves inscriptions are garbage transactions that should be eliminated, and Bitcoin should not become a storage chain.

• Right-wingbelieves we should not censor (inscriptions) or restrict certain transactions from going on-chain. Filters should only filter pure DoS attacks.

PS: Although I used the term extreme right-wing, it doesnotmean [extreme right-wing] is a derogatory term.

The former is radical garbage filtering, the latter is mild garbage filtering.

In the past, these transaction relays were essentially volunteer-maintained, especially those with [radical garbage filtering rules], because these volunteers had strong beliefs - they despised inscriptions.

However, once Core group personally adds [mild garbage filtering rules] to the Bitcoin client, it might mean the market share of past [radical garbage filtering rules] will drastically shrink.

If you're a bit confused by now, let me give an analogy - it's like the official suddenly canonizing a CP, crushing fan-made pairings, essentially the official killing fan works.

Of course, although Core's market share currently exceeds 90%, Core doesn't consider themselves the "official".

Because Bitcoin is a network defined by its users, users have the ultimate free choice of which software to use and what policies to implement. Bitcoin Core contributors have no right to mandate these, and to avoid suspicion, they even avoid automatic software updates.

Personally, I support Core group's update.

As I said before, if your fence is only 10 cm high and everyone can freely enter and exit, you might as well tear it down.

Although I'm indifferent to inscriptions, I don't consider them garbage transactions as long as they pay normally.

Inscriptions also pay fees proportionally, there's no need to be at odds with money, and they bring additional income to miners, helping Bitcoin maintain strong security after multiple halvings.

Moreover,I firmly oppose transaction censorship. The semi-official Core leading any discrimination against transactions that normally pay fees, because transaction discrimination will gradually becometransaction censorship.

One of Bitcoin's proudest attributes is its security and lack of transaction censorship.And adopting mild garbage filtering rules is beneficial to both of these characteristics.

Critics argue that this is a compromise by the Core team towards miners (considering their income), abandoning its users. I disagree with this view - inscription users are also Bitcoin users.

Times have progressed, and the hardware environment is no longer like in 2008. If the Bitcoin blockchain stores some text and images in 2025, it would not be difficult for nodes, and Satoshi Nakamoto himself engraved the news of that year in the genesis block.

Bitcoin will never become a storage chain, but what's wrong with storing some data as a side job without touching the underlying infrastructure?

Physical gold can be engraved with records, and our electronic gold should also tacitly allow this.

So I strongly support the Core team's proposal. It's an interesting topic.

Overall, I am more inclined to support Bitcoin's removal of the current 80-byte OP-Return limit.

There are four reasons:

1. Around 2014, Bitcoin's OP-Return area changed to 40 bytes (later increased to 80 bytes), with reasons similar to today's opponents: Bitcoin needs to be pure and solely used for accounting, not for storing data.

During Satoshi Nakamoto's era, OP-Return had no byte limit. Returning now is not heretical, but rather a classic revival

2. If your fence is only 10 cm high and others can freely enter and exit, you might as well tear it down.

Currently, there are too many ways to bypass Bitcoin's 80-byte OP-Return limit, including but not limited to inscriptions and runes that we are familiar with.

This also includes some less common methods, such as through nodes, like the LibreRelay client mentioned by @jeffrey_hu.

LibreRelay's slogan is quite interesting: "Eliminating paternalism in Bitcoin Core relay policies".

Peter Todd, who initiated this discussion, is considered a Core team member, although he seemingly lacks final update permissions. However, his views and code have undoubtedly contributed to Bitcoin among the TOP10 in the past years. Now that the parent himself actively chooses not to be a parent, we must support him.

3. Eliminating the OP-Return limit can immediatelyreduce the burden on the current network from inscriptions.

Previously, inscriptions were trading on the chain by exploiting bugs, often requiring multiple transactions. After removing the limit, inscriptions can simply and legitimately record through OP-Return.

Currently, few people are playing with inscriptions, so this reason is just a bonus.

4. Provide additional income for miners.

I saw the 7M super large bug OP-Return block, and the person sending this transaction actually spent $3,600 in fees.

I am personally a libertarian. This is determined by the market - willing buyers and sellers. Some are willing to pay to go on-chain, and some are willing to collect money to package - maintaining a paternalistic hard intervention is meaningless.

With Bitcoin's halving every 4 years, giving miners more income can help them continue to invest computing power and consolidate Bitcoin's security, which is definitely a good thing.