Bitcoin threatened by spam? This radical plan to end it is a debate

The large cleaning of the Bitcoin network is back on the table. Some are talking about digital hygiene. Others, disguised censorship. And at the heart of this agitation, a name: GrassfedbitCoin. This developer is releasing an old debate, accusing spammers of stifling the protocol. And now the ancients wake up. Saifdean Ammous, author of “The Bitcoin Standard”, says he is ready to financially support a technical crusade against what he considers a deviant use of Bitcoin. Band of jealous or temple guards?

Bitcoin filters: a disturbing idea

GrassfedBitcoin wants reopen the Request sweater #28408. It would allow Bitcoin nodes to automatically filter the famous “inscriptions”. These data, often images, saturate the blocks without real monetary utility. For him, it's a drift. He declares:

No one wants to relay inscriptions. Give them tools for this purpose, make them configurable and define a default policy which makes bitcoin as a whole more conducive to monetary activity-and not to the storage of JPG.

And to add that the previous increases in the OP_TREN limit were based on false hypotheses. He asks A default policy, modularwhich promotes financial transactions and discourages image storage. This position, although supported, is not unanimous.

Adam Back, CEO of Blockstream, tempers enthusiasm. For him, it is An “arms race”. He explains that spam can always disguise itself as a valid code: ” The code is infinitely variable “, He said. So spammers can always get around the filters.

But for GrassfedBitCoin, spam mechanics remain predictable. “” If you give me filters, I will use them He says. Its argument: with sufficient adoption, spam decreases by technical constraint.

Bitcoin or bitstore? The identity of the protocol in play

The question goes beyond the technique. It touches the very soul of Bitcoin. Is it a reserve of value or a JPEG file filing? For Ammous, it's clear: You have to act. “” It's not easy, but it's worth trying to ruin spammers faster “, He writes. He insists: filtering is not censor.

The nodes already reject invalid transactions. So filtering is a right of use, not an attack on freedom.

But the opposition remains lively. Some evoke an authoritarian drift, others defend their Freedom to code. More technical voices recall that current spam exploits the signature witness (Witness Discount), supposed to reduce the UTXO base, but which increases it in practice.

Here is a summary of stumbling blocks:

• The average block could reach 4 MB with inscriptions (source: Mempool Research);
• The current block is around 1.5 MB;
• The signature witness is diverted from his initial function;
• Filters can reduce spam in a non -linear manner;
• Forks and Knots already offer these options, but few are adopted.

Behind these figures, A war of visions. Some want a clean bitcoin, centered on currency. Others, a space of expression without constraint. Two utopias compete.

Recently, the OP_Return has already caused a lot of ink to flow. As the proposals harden, it is the whole structure of Bitcoin which seems ready to switch. More than a debate on spam, it may be a deep identity turning point for the protocol.