A debate has erupted among the Bitcoin community over a joint statement released by 31 Bitcoin Core developers on June 6.
In their statement, the developers argued that while the new transaction relay policy might lead to more non-financial use cases, protecting censorship resistance is one of the core tenets of the blockchain.
The developers noted that the Bitcoin network is “defined by its users, who have ultimate freedom” to choose whether they utilize the blockchain for financial or non-financial use cases. As such, the Bitcoin core developers are “not in a position to mandate” what software or policies they choose.
Several Bitcoiners have opposed the developers’ opinion, calling it a drift away from the blockchain’s original intended function. On the other hand, some have defended the developers’ viewpoint, leading to a global debate among Bitcoiners.
The Bitcoin transaction relay policy is at the core of the debate
Transaction relay is a ‘core tenet’ of a Bitcoin node. Nodes relay block transactions and validations to other nodes to ensure that the blockchain remains updated across all nodes.
On May 5, core contributors to the Bitcoin network announced that the next upgrade will remove the 80-byte data cap for transaction relays. This would allow users to embed larger data segments more efficiently, the post noted, adding:
“The long-standing cap, originally a gentle signal that block space should be used sparingly for non-payment proof of publication data, has outlived its utility.”
The developers argued that users have found ways to circumvent the data limit, which can potentially harm the network. Therefore, “retiring a deterrent that no longer deters” large-data inscriptions will enable the fee market to “arbitrate competing demands.”
The announcement sparked a debate with some considering the move to be logical, while others considered it an open invitation to spam transactions.
Bitcoin core developers defend stance to remove data limit for transaction relays
In their Friday statement, the Bitcoin core developers defended their decision to remove the data cap for transaction relays. They noted that it is their responsibility to ensure that their software is efficient and reliable, contributing to Bitcoin’s success as a decentralized digital currency. They stated:
“With regards to transaction relay, this may include adding policies for denial of service (DoS) protection and fee assessment, but not blocking relay of transactions that have sustained economic demand and reliably make it into blocks.”
According to the developers, transaction relay has three major goals. This includes predicting which transactions will be mined, which also serves to prevent denial-of-service (DoS) attacks. In DoS attacks, miscreants flood the network with spam transactions, overwhelming the network and preventing it from processing transaction requests from legitimate users.
Additionally, transaction relay also speeds up transaction propagation, which in turn prevents large miners from gaining an unfair advantage. It also helps miners learn about fee-paying transactions, the developers noted. Therefore, they wrote:
“Knowingly refusing to relay transactions that miners would include in blocks anyway forces users into alternate communication channels, undermining the above goals.”
Besides, the Bitcoin node software should not intervene through a data cap where both transaction creators and miners consent to add a large data inscription to a block, the developers noted. This is because Bitcoin was built on the ethos of censorship resistance, they explained, adding that large data transactions are “largely harmless at a technical level.”
The developers clarified, however:
“This is not endorsing or condoning non-financial data usage, but accepting that as a censorship-resistant system, Bitcoin can and will be used for use cases not everyone agrees on.”
They added that while they are aware of the dissent among Bitcoiners, they sincerely believe the move “is in the best interest of Bitcoin and its users.”
Bitcoiners split over transaction relay policy change
Among those who are opposed to the transaction relay policy change is Bitcoin core developer and OCEAN Bitcoin mining pool creator Luke Dashjr, also known as Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton. In an X post, Dashjr noted:
“The goals of transaction relay listed are basically all wrong. Predicting what will be mined is a centralizing goal. Expecting spam to be mined is defeatism. Helping spam propagate is harmful.”
He added that the statement portrays the abuse of the blockchain through spam transactions as legitimate use cases instead of treating them as DoS attacks. However, he believes such transactions are the same as DoS attacks.
Pseudonymous X user SatsScholar, who runs Bitcoin Knots, a specialized version of Bitcoin Core that is maintained by Dashjr, called the new relay policy an ideological drift, noting:
“Core’s new stance essentially says, “if someone pays enough, any use is valid.” That’s economically naive and ignores Bitcoin’s fundamental purpose as a monetary network.”
Several Bitcoiners echoed SatsScholar’s views, including Dennis Porter, CEO of Bitcoin mining advocacy firm Satoshi Action Fund, who said the policy change is “absolutely condoning bloat.” In a more scathing post, one user wrote:
“It’s Bit”Coin” not Bit”Bucket” or Bit”Store” or whatever general purpose data store you have in mind. It’s a “peer to peer electronic cash system”.”
The user added that keeping the network focused on its original purpose is not censorship.
Dissenters of the proposal also include miners, one of whom claimed that the removal of the data cap “risks diluting Bitcoin’s monetary focus, overburdening future nodes, further centralizing power, possibly threatening scalability, and fracturing the Bitcoin community’s faith.”
Jameson Lopp, co-founder and chief security officer of Bitcoin wallet Casa, was among those who supported the developers’ statement, noting:
“Core Devs are a group saying we can’t force anyone to run code they don’t like, here is our thinking on relay policy & network health.”
Read the full article here
