Observations and personal opinions from Nothing Research Partner 0x_Todd; the following content does not constitute any investment advice.
The Core group released the latest statement, and the Bitcoin core development circle was in an uproar. I saw that there wasn't much discussion in the Chinese-speaking community, so I came to analyze the background of the story and share my strong opinions.
First, yesterday Bitcoin Core released a statement called (Bitcoin Core Development and Transaction Relay Policy), which was vehemently criticized by opponents as notorious as the (New York Agreement).
So what exactly did this statement say?
Bitcoin Core wants to push a built-in transaction relay.
I believe this transaction relay is paving the way for the previous removal of OP-Return area restrictions.
Why has this sparked a lot of discussion?
It's because there is another story behind the story. I have talked about this before—two years ago, inscriptions started to thrive, but these inscriptions and runes were stored in the OP-Return area of the Bitcoin blocks in a way similar to 'exploiting a bug', thereby circumventing the Bitcoin block limit.
As a result, there are now divisions between the right and the far-right in Bitcoin.
Inscriptions have caused resentment among the far-right, and under the call of Luke and others, the second-ranking Bitcoin client Knots launched a junk filter that treated these inscription transactions as junk transactions and refused to package them. If you recall, this even led to a significant drop in Ordi at the time.
However, the ordinary right, namely the Bitcoin Core group, believes that since inscriptions can already exploit bugs to go on-chain, it is better to normalize them than to let them continue to exploit bugs.
In recent months, the Core group proposed a new PR to change OP-Return from 80KB to unlimited, directly eliminating restrictions on inscriptions and allowing them to go on-chain openly.
Although most inscriptions are essentially junk, I believe this is somewhat additional support for miners, as earning a bit more can make the Bitcoin network a bit more secure.
After discussing the background of the background, let's return to what this 'transaction relay' really is.
In theory, Bitcoin is a P2P network, meaning all miners are in a single line of connection with each other. However, this is theoretically the safest approach, as the current network environment is relatively safe, and there is no need to be so absolute.
Thus, the 'transaction relay' has emerged, allowing everyone to *optionally* send transactions to the relay (note that it is not mandatory, it is voluntary), which has two major benefits:
1. It helps prevent DoS attacks, as those sending random zero-fee transactions will not overwhelm miners' peer-to-peer servers;
2. It speeds up the propagation of transaction blocks and reduces latency, helping to prevent large miners from gaining an unfair advantage.
This is actually a very good thing.
In the past, transaction relays had different strategies; some strictly filtered junk transactions, while others were completely free.
PS: I do not consider this to be transaction censorship; it is more about filtering junk transactions, and users can choose not to use these features.
In fact, both the right (Core group) and the far-right (Luke and others) demand filtering of junk transactions, but the core contradiction is that everyone's definition of junk transactions is completely different.
The far-right believes that inscriptions are junk transactions and should be eliminated; Bitcoin should not become a storage chain.
The right believes that we should not censor (inscriptions) or restrict certain transactions from being on-chain. Filters should only filter out pure DoS attacks.
PS: Although I used the term far-right here, it does not imply that 'far-right' is a pejorative term.
The former is radical junk filtering, while the latter is mild junk filtering.
In the past, these transaction relays were essentially powered by love, maintained by volunteers, especially the 'radical junk filtering rules', because these volunteers had a strong belief—namely, a hatred for inscriptions.
However, once the Core group personally added 'mild junk filtering rules' to the Bitcoin client, it may signify that the market share of the previous 'radical junk filtering rules' has greatly shrunk.
If you're a bit confused at this point, let me use an analogy—it's like the official suddenly announcing a CP, diminishing the same pair in fan works, essentially forcing the fan works to die.
Of course, even though Core's market share exceeds 90% now, Core does not consider itself 'official'.
Because Bitcoin is a network defined by its users, users have the ultimate freedom to choose what software to use and implement any policies they wish. Bitcoin Core contributors have no authority to enforce these matters, and to avoid conflicts of interest, they even refrain from automatic software updates.
Personally, I actually support updates like those from the Core group.
Still, that being said, if your fence is only 10 cm high and others can come and go freely, you might as well take it down to save trouble.
Although I personally have no feelings towards inscriptions, I do not consider them junk transactions; as long as they pay the normal fees, they are good transactions.
Inscriptions also pay fees based on their volume, and there is no need to be at odds with money; furthermore, they provide additional income for miners, which helps keep Bitcoin strong in terms of security after multiple halvings.
Moreover, I firmly oppose transaction censorship; I do not support Bitcoin's semi-official Core leading any discrimination against transactions that pay normal transaction fees because transaction discrimination can gradually turn into transaction censorship.
One of Bitcoin's proudest attributes is its security and lack of transaction censorship. Adopting mild junk filtering rules benefits both of these characteristics.
Opponents criticize this as a compromise by the Core group to the miners (due to considerations of miners' income) while abandoning its users. I disagree with this view—inscription users are also Bitcoin users.
Times have progressed; it is no longer the hardware environment of 2008. If in 2025 Bitcoin's blockchain stores some text and images, it would not be difficult for nodes, and Satoshi Nakamoto himself engraved the news of the time in the genesis block.
Bitcoin will never become a storage chain, but what harm is there in casually storing some data as a part-time job without cutting into the underlying structure?
Real physical gold can be carved to leave a record, and our electronic gold should likewise be permissive of this.
Therefore, I strongly support the proposal from the Core group.