The recent announcement from the Bitcoin Core development team has ignited a firestorm of debate across the cryptocurrency community. While discussions in English-speaking circles have been intense, commentary in Chinese remains relatively sparse. This article unpacks the background of the controversy, explores the technical and philosophical implications of Bitcoin Core’s proposed transaction relay policy, and explains why supporting this move aligns with Bitcoin’s long-term health and decentralization principles.
Understanding the Bitcoin Core Transaction Relay Proposal
Bitcoin Core recently released a policy document titled “Bitcoin Core Development and Transaction Relay Policy.” While seemingly bureaucratic, this statement has drawn fierce criticism—some even comparing it to the controversial 2017 New York Agreement (NYA). So what exactly does it propose?
At its core, the update introduces an officially maintained transaction relay mechanism built directly into the Bitcoin Core client. This isn’t mandatory—nodes remain free to operate independently—but it offers a standardized, default method for propagating transactions across the network.
This built-in relay system is widely interpreted as paving the way for removing the current 80-byte limit on the OP_RETURN field—a change that would effectively normalize inscription-based data storage like Ordinals and Runes on Bitcoin.
The Inscription Debate: Two Visions for Bitcoin’s Future
To understand the backlash, we must revisit the rise of Bitcoin inscriptions. Two years ago, developers began leveraging the OP_RETURN opcode—a feature originally intended for small metadata tags—to embed images, text, and even entire NFTs directly into Bitcoin blocks. These inscriptions function like a "bug exploit," using existing protocol rules to store arbitrary data without altering consensus.
This innovation split the Bitcoin community into two ideological camps:
- The "Purist" (or "Hardline") Camp: Believes Bitcoin should remain a pure peer-to-peer electronic cash system. They argue inscriptions bloat the blockchain, increase node storage costs, and degrade network performance. Led by figures like Luke Dashjr, this group supports clients like Knots, which implement aggressive spam filters that reject inscription transactions outright.
- The "Pragmatist" (or "Moderate") Camp: Acknowledges that inscriptions are here to stay. Rather than fighting them through censorship, they advocate for formal recognition and integration. The Bitcoin Core team falls into this category, promoting a model where all transactions—including inscriptions—are treated equally as long as they pay appropriate fees.
Why Transaction Relay Matters for Network Health
Bitcoin is designed as a peer-to-peer (P2P) network, where every node communicates directly with others. In theory, this maximizes decentralization and resilience. In practice, raw P2P has limitations:
- Vulnerability to Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks from zero-fee spam transactions.
- Slower block propagation, which can give large mining pools an unfair advantage.
- Increased latency affecting confirmation times and user experience.
Transaction relays solve these issues by acting as efficient intermediaries. Users voluntarily submit transactions to relays, which validate and distribute them quickly across the network. Benefits include:
- Faster transaction dissemination
- Reduced load on individual nodes
- Lower risk of network partitioning
- More equitable mining conditions
Crucially, this is not transaction censorship—it’s spam filtering. Nodes retain full autonomy. Users can bypass relays entirely if they choose.
The Real Conflict: Defining “Spam”
The core disagreement isn’t about whether to filter spam—it’s about what qualifies as spam.
- Hardliners define any inscription as spam, regardless of fee payment.
- Pragmatists argue only zero-fee or malformed transactions should be filtered.
Historically, aggressive filtering was maintained by volunteer-run relays driven by ideological conviction. But with Bitcoin Core now offering a default, moderately filtered relay, these independent relays may lose relevance—much like fan-made content being overshadowed when official media embraces a previously niche idea.
👉 See how leading blockchain platforms handle network scalability and user demand.
This shift doesn’t impose rules—it provides a default option that balances security, efficiency, and inclusivity.
Why Supporting Core’s Approach Strengthens Bitcoin
I firmly support Bitcoin Core’s proposal for several reasons:
1. Economic Incentives Enhance Security
Inscriptions generate additional transaction fees, providing miners with supplementary income. As Bitcoin undergoes repeated halvings, this revenue stream helps maintain hashrate stability and overall network security.
2. No Discrimination Against Paying Users
As long as users pay market-rate fees based on transaction size, their data deserves inclusion. Rejecting valid transactions sets a dangerous precedent toward transaction censorship—a direct threat to Bitcoin’s foundational principle of permissionless access.
3. Bitcoin Can Evolve Without Breaking Its Core
Allowing limited data storage doesn’t turn Bitcoin into a “storage chain.” The base layer remains unchanged. Just as physical gold can be engraved without losing its monetary value, digital gold can carry cultural artifacts—like Satoshi embedding The Times headline in the genesis block.
4. Decentralization Through Choice
Bitcoin Core doesn’t claim authority. It offers tools. Users and node operators retain full control over which software and policies they adopt. The project avoids automatic updates precisely to prevent centralization of power.
FAQ: Addressing Common Concerns
Q: Doesn’t this give Bitcoin Core too much influence?
A: While Core has over 90% node share, it doesn’t enforce rules. Anyone can fork the code or run alternative clients. Influence comes from trust and code quality—not coercion.
Q: Won’t inscriptions bloat the blockchain?
A: Yes, but proportionally. Inscriptions pay higher fees per byte, creating a market-based check on usage. Node operators can choose pruning options or run archival nodes based on their needs.
Q: Is this a betrayal of Bitcoin’s original vision?
A: Not necessarily. Satoshi allowed OP_RETURN for a reason. Innovation within protocol boundaries reflects organic growth—not deviation.
Q: Can miners manipulate this system?
A: Miners always choose which transactions to include. The relay only affects propagation speed—not consensus outcomes.
Q: What happens to non-Core clients like Knots?
A: They’ll continue existing. But if their filtering policies diverge too far from economic reality, adoption may decline—a natural market correction.
Final Thoughts: Embracing Evolution Without Compromise
Bitcoin doesn’t need to become a storage platform to allow meaningful data expression. By supporting moderate transaction relay policies and removing artificial limits on OP_RETURN, the Core team isn’t surrendering to miners or speculators—they’re acknowledging user behavior and strengthening economic incentives.
In a world where hardware capabilities have advanced far beyond 2008’s constraints, storing small amounts of cultural or historical data on-chain is feasible and even poetic.
The path forward isn’t ideological purity at the cost of relevance—it’s principled pragmatism: preserving decentralization, preventing censorship, and letting the market decide what belongs on Bitcoin.
👉 Explore how blockchain innovation continues to evolve while maintaining trustless systems.