Original editor: GaryMa Wu said blockchain
Inscription and the popularity of BRC-20 have caused high fees for Bitcoin network congestion, which has been discussed in the Bitcoin developer community.
On May 8, Bitcoin core developer Ali Sherief initiated a discussion on the Bitcoin development mailing list, expressing whether Bitcoin developers should take action in the face of such "valueless" transactions, and gave a possible option, namely "introduce a runtime option to drop all non-standard Taproot transactions immediately".
At present, many developers have participated in the discussion. A few people think that this type of transaction should be directly reviewed. Some people think that this is the way the system works without intervention. There are also suggestions for appropriate adjustments or diversion to L2, etc., Wu said. as follows:
Ali Sherief (discussion initiator):“Recently, projects such as BRC-20 have taken up a lot of transaction volume, causing real bitcoin transaction prices to be too high, thereby triggering massive congestion in the bitcoin transaction pool, which has rarely been seen since December 2017 See. These almost worthless tokens threaten the normal use of the Bitcoin network as a peer-to-peer digital currency. If the transaction volume does not drop in the next few weeks, should measures be taken? The Bitcoin network is a tripartite structure of developers, miners and users , and miners are often the main body that causes the system to be abused, so the harmony of Bitcoin transactions is currently disturbed. We should consider taking action to narrow the loopholes in BIP 342, and achieve it through BIP and Bitcoin core codebase commits This goal. Another alternative is to implement "censorship" at the node level and introduce a runtime option to immediately purge all non-standard Taproot transactions, which is easier to implement, but will require at least the next release. We A solution needs to be found for all and while some will be critical, it is our responsibility to ensure this congestion does not happen again."
Michael Folkson：“Miners include transactions in blocks with high fees that comply with consensus rules. If users don’t like transactions included by miners, there are two theoretical options: consensus rule changes or policy changes. The former requires a soft fork, which is difficult to implement And the effect is limited; the latter does not require consensus rule changes, but it is still possible to bypass the P2P network and submit transactions directly to miners. The design decision of BIP 342 has its technical reasons, and data cannot be simply divided into useful and useless. Policies or consensus rules Changes are not feasible. Availability of transactions has nothing to do with using Taproot or Pre-Taproot addresses, everything to do with limited block space and market demand. Blind policy or consensus rule adjustments can be counterproductive."
Erik Aronesty：“Bitcoin’s primary goal may only be the monetary use case, rather than being a global ledger of everything. It could provide a permanent incentive for non-economic transactions to remain off-chain (L2).”
Luke Dashjr：“Action should have been done months ago. Spam filtering has been a standard feature of Bitcoin Core since its inception. Not extending existing filters to Taproot transactions now is a mistake. We can fix that , or try a more limited approach like OP_RETURN (which is what "Ordisrespector" does). Since this is a bugfix, it doesn't even have to wait for a major release."
Peter Todd：“Miners are the beneficiaries of this craze, and even with the restrictions, there are ways for miners to get around it. A lot of people like me won’t be running nodes to censor those transactions.”
jk_ 14 （Jaroslaw）："The proliferation of Spam transactions is not the root cause, but the high transaction fees. It is recommended to solve the long-term security budget of Bitcoin to reduce transaction fees."
Aleksandr：“Two ways, either set such transactions to only occupy up to 10% of the block capacity, or change the structure so that the transaction fees of these transactions will be more expensive, and push these transactions to L2 such as Lightning Network.”
Other points of view:
Speaking to Cointelegraph, Samson Mow stated that the hype around Ordinals and BRC-20 tokens is unsustainable and will fade away in a few months; essentially paying huge fees directly to Bitcoin miners, which is impossible Persist; Samson Mow argues that they clog the web like spam, that Bitcoin's mass adoption is due to its use as a savings technology and a means of transaction, not because "people make JPEGs and stick them in the chain ".
Enrico Rubboli, CEO of Bitcoin layer 2 sidechain Mintlayer: The technology behind Ordinals is "deeply flawed" and doesn't follow "the axioms of the core Bitcoin community." Ordinals could lead to additional regulatory scrutiny of bitcoin, as the new BRC-20 tokens could be considered unregulated securities.
AngelBlock founder Alex Strzesniewski: I see a lot of backlash from BTC maximalists, but I don't think anyone should use their platform to try to censor transactions and try to discern valid and invalid transactions on any network.
F 2 pool: Ordinals is a useful exploration of Bitcoin applications, helping to unlock greater value in the Bitcoin network.
Paolo Ardoino, CTO of Bitfinex and Tether, said in an interview with Cointelegraph during Rome Blockchain Week that if a feature exists, users have the right to use it, and exchanges should speed up the application of Lightning Network.
https://cointelegraph.com/news/ordinals-good-or-bad-for-bitcoin-supporters-and-opposers-raise-voice
