Andreas Antonopoulos, a prominent educator and Bitcoin (BTC) popularizer, has been embroiled in controversy over the use of the network to include non-monetary data. A debate that divides the identity of Bitcoiners.
some They consider these embeds as “spam”occupying space without moving BTC, some argue that Bitcoin is open and any use is allowed as long as fees are paid.
There is a discussion going on between users and developers about its implications. Transactions that add arbitrary informationAs reported by CriptoNoticias, it has been intensifying since April last year.
These data, including images, text, files, etc. opcode OP_RETURN.
As part of the controversy, Antonopoulos published a video on his Patreon account on November 24th. He argued that “any data can be encoded just like any other data,” and explained the reason for this as follows: It’s difficult to draw a clear line between what is legal and what is not. In his words:
One person’s spam is another person’s content. The power to decide what is allowed and what is prohibited is dangerous because it leads to censorship.
Andreas Antonopoulos, Bitcoiner Educator.
A central point of his argument is censorship. When a group of developers defines what kind of information can be included, Borders will become less technical and more political..
As he explained, if Bitcoin developers demonstrate that they can exclude content, “then they will be obligated to censor it in every jurisdiction in which they live.”
Antonopolis’ words softened the argument
Luke Dashjr is a veteran protocol developer and main maintainer of Bitcoin Knot, who opposes non-monetary uses of Bitcoin. Rejects Andreas’ analysisbut I won’t go into depth.
“Bottom line: you don’t know what you’re talking about and didn’t bother to look it up,” wrote Luke, who questioned Antonopoulos’ stance on using OP_RETURN.
in another thread of
For example, law firm founder Sasha Hodder explicitly warns, “If developers can censor Bitcoin, they will eventually be forced to do so.”
Giacomo Zucco, president of PlanB Network, regrets the setback in the discussions.
Damn, reverting the argument back to “spam doesn’t exist, filtering is censorship” is completely retarded stupidity. We were working toward a realistic way to filter spam. Net negative impact.
Mr. Giacomo Zucco, President of Plan B Network.
These positions range from absolute rejection of any form of filtering for fear of centralized censorship to frustration at the lack of progress in practical technical solutions to network abuse.
According to Antonopoulos, why is it preferable to use OP_RETURN?
To illustrate the extent of the problem, educators gave several examples of information already circulating on the Internet. damn pegJPEG, NFT, trash… Bible verses.
This list shows that non-monetary data can be trivial, artistic, arbitrary, or even questionable. But according to his vision, his existence is cannot be selectively deleted without introducing veto mechanisms.
Antonopoulos argued that banning such use would not solve the problem. He said that if a protocol makes it difficult to store data through a specific path, Users will look for other, more invasive methods:
If you make OP_RETURN too difficult, people will put content elsewhere in the protocol. I would like it to be in OP_RETURN so that it can be disposed of and not loaded forever.
Andreas Antonopoulos, Bitcoiner Educator.
When Andreas says “can be destroyed” he is referring to the nature of using OP_RETURN. This allows you to include material in areas that the network can ignore. without compromising security.
the data embedded by it opcode They are not permanently fixed to each copy of the network. This instruction indicates that the information is not required to verify a financial transaction.
Therefore, a node can “prun”, or remove from storage, the payment history without affecting its integrity.
When Antonopoulos talks about “discarding”, he means that this data can be optionally stored or directly omitted on nodes that want to operate with less space. impossible thing If the same data were hidden in other parts of the protocol Cases that cannot be distinguished from strictly financial matters.
OP_RETURN splits the burden and Bitcoin
Despite Antonopoulos’ explanation, an X user known as Zatoichi called his position “incompetent.”
He uses OP_RETURN and witness Managing transactions does not mean performing content moderation; Apply protocol rules.
He also pointed out that: witness (data segment introduced in SegWit, which stores signatures and certain optional elements) is four times cheaper in terms of relative weight.
Finally, he argued that new types of non-monetary data are unnecessary because of their low cost. I tend to migrate there before OP_RETURNthat would invalidate Antonopoulos’ proposal.
As such, the debate over “spam” has divided Bitcoiners’ identities, forcing them to take positions on which uses should be considered legitimate and which ones are not.
(Tag Translation)Bitcoin (BTC)
