The Bitcoin community is embroiled in a heated debate over how to address the growing problem of non-monetary data clogging the blockchain, with prominent figures clashing over technical solutions to combat spam-like inscriptions.
Economist Saifedean Ammous, author of The Bitcoin Standard, recently pledged financial support for developers working to deter spam transactions. His remarks followed a proposal by pseudonymous developer GrassFedBitcoin, who urged Bitcoin Core contributors to adopt Pull Request #28408, a code update allowing node operators to filter out inscriptions—data embedded in transactions, such as images or text. GrassFedBitcoin argued that unchecked inscriptions risk distorting Bitcoin’s primary purpose as a peer-to-peer monetary network by bloating the blockchain with non-essential data.
“Bitcoin’s blockspace should prioritize financial transactions, not JPEGs,” GrassFedBitcoin stated, advocating for configurable policies to discourage non-monetary use cases. However, Blockstream CEO Adam Back dismissed the proposal as impractical, likening inscription filtering to an endless “arms race.” He emphasized that spammers could easily alter code structures to bypass filters, forcing developers into constant updates.
Ammous countered by comparing Bitcoin’s spam challenge to email spam, stressing that combating unwanted data does not equate to censorship. “Node operators already reject invalid transactions. This is about preserving efficiency, not control,” he said. Others in the thread proposed unconventional tactics, such as treating spam-tool developers as “unwilling QA engineers” and systematically neutralizing their methods. Ammous even suggested crowdfunding developers to “overwhelm” spam systems.
The dispute underscores a deeper ideological rift over Bitcoin’s functionality. Proponents of strict monetary use warn that inscriptions could inflate average block sizes to 4 megabytes—nearly triple the current 1.5 MB average—according to a February report by Mempool Research. Critics, however, view attempts to filter data as antithetical to Bitcoin’s permissionless ethos.
As transaction fees rise and block space tightens, the community faces mounting pressure to reconcile Bitcoins original vision with its evolving role in a world increasingly eager to exploit its decentralized infrastructure. Whether through code updates, market-driven fees, or community consensus, the path forward remains fiercely contested.