Is Bitcoin facing a new civil war?

May 12th Is Bitcoin facing a new civil war?

The discussion on transaction filters on the Bitcoin blockchain highlights the department of the development community. Blocksize War 2015-2017. The problem lies in the conflict between the two sides. One side supports stricter filter application (to limit transaction types such as ordinals, inscriptions, coin joins, etc.), while the other side protects open and decentralized networks. Opponents warn that OP_return slack could expand the blockchain, and supporters believe the current filter is invalid and soft censored. The use of alternatives like Bitcoin Knot And concerns about centralised management, the results of this discussion reconstruct the way Bitcoin determines neutralism, policy enforcement, and its evolutionary role in the cryptocurrency world.

Do you want to filter filters or remove transaction censorship?

The controversy over Mempool Filter Policy’s Bitcoin policy revealed a deep division of the development community, particularly on how to handle non-monetary transactions such as ordinals, inscriptions and coin-in. These transactions are perfectly valid and pay market fees, but many people still try to eliminate them based on content or intent – rather than violating the rules, they are a form of subjective censorship. The focus of the discussion is Peter Todd’s proposal to eliminate old restrictions on any data storage through the op_return school. Supporters believe that current filters are ineffective as current filters can be easily overcome either directly to the miner or by using a replacement transmission network. They argue that elimination of these constraints not only reflects the decentralized nature of Bitcoin, but also reduces concentration pressures in response to the deployment of non-standard members.

In contrast, opponents warn that loosening of these restrictions will push Bitcoin into a multi-purpose data ledger instead of a currency network, reducing core values. Many concerns have been raised about block block block block block block blocks, attracting greater UTXO and long-term impacts on decentralization. Some developers, like Ocean Mining’s Jason Hughes, have even warned that these changes could turn Bitcoin into a further “value art coin.” Frustration with Bitcoin’s core increases.

The key point lies in the difference between consensus rules and submission policies. The proposed changes do not change the consensus mechanism, but only adjust the method of the send handling button. Strong filtration supporters (including Luke Dash Jr.) argue that “spam” transactions and coin-in reduce the user experience, and privacy supporters consider this a form of censorship, creating a bad precedent if the use is fined or excluded.

The impact of this discussion far outweighs the technical question of how the Bitcoin button handles transactions that are not explained. It touches on the philosophical foundations of Bitcoin. It’s whether it acts purely as a currency network or whether it remains open and resisted. Core developers emphasize the practicality and effectiveness of the network, but opposition is concerned that Mempool’s policy is a backdoor for soft censorship. The rise in alternative deployments such as knots (and livitocoins are low), decentralized calls of policy decisions, and some additional divergence trends indicate that Bitcoin is in new stages, ideas that need to be harmonized to protect the design of protocols, ideas, and its decentralized freedoms, and management structures.

Many people compare it to 2017 Blocksize War

The current discussion of Op_return and Mempool filters has many similarities to Blocksize War from 2015 to 2017. Both arguments revolve around fundamental differences of opinion regarding the purpose of Bitcoin. It will either maintain minimalism and anti-sensorship or evolve to support more flexible use cases.

The block size fight began when some developers and companies promoted the size of 1MB block size to resolve transaction fees and crowds. The other party argues that increasing the size of the block makes it difficult to focus on the network, execute regular user buttons, and undermine the anti-sensorship of decentralization and Bitcoin censorship. The final result is a Separation Witness (SEGWIT) activated via a user-activated Soft Fork (UASF) mechanism. However, the result is a permanent separation when the sides oppose Segwit and support large blocks to create Bitcoin Cash (BCH).

Today, the issue of op_return filtration repeats many similar topics. Filter supporters have suggested that they effectively protect the network and limit spam, but the opposition is seen as an authoritarian intervention that undermines neutralism and Bitcoin’s censorship resistance. Just as in Blocksize War, who made clear about Bitcoin rules (the rules of users, not developers or miners), this argument leads many people to think about the meaning of the operation of one button and the responsibility of software for neutrality. For users who switch to exchange deployments such as Bitcoin Knots, the similarities between UASF time and the 2017 chain separation are not overlooked, and the results can shape the power balance of Bitcoin management models.

Is spam transaction filters really executable?

Bitcoin’s Mempool is a distributed area where transactions that are valid but not verified by buttons are held until the miners bring them into the block. When Segwit was introduced in 2017, it helped move some of the transaction data from its traditional structure and take advantage of more effective block space. This encourages protocols such as prefaces and inscriptions to inject and inscriptions incorrectly incorporate any content at a low cost.

Introduced in early 2023, ordinates and indentations exploited the Segwitt Witness space to engrave any data, such as images, text, files, etc. on the blockchain. By using Taproot output and flexible witness structures, these protocols exceed traditional limitations and embed superdata into transactions without violating consensus rules. Deploying Coinjoin like Whirlpool also uses advanced scripting and witness space to coordinate privacy protection transactions. All of these techniques work within the framework of Bitcoin rules and required fees, but unlike traditional currency use cases, they raise concerns about the sustainability and intent of block space.

Ocean, a Bitcoin exploitation group led by Luke Dash Jr. and backed by Jack Dorsey, deployed filters to node infrastructure based on Bitcoin Knots, rejecting many types of transactions that are considered spam. This filter contains ordinal inscriptions and coin supervision transactions from Whirlpool or Wasabi Wallet Wallet in Samourai Wallet. This filter works by imposes a solid limit on the size of OP_Return and using too much witness space to deny the use of transactions. Ocean argues that this effectively protects the network and maintains Bitcoin’s cash centre, but opposition views it as a form of censorship, warning that it fragments the memo pool and undermines neutrality and the free nature of Bitcoin. Transactional objects argue that filtering “spam” transactions at the button level or at the exploitation team is unrealistic. This is because users can easily overcome it by sending directly to miners or embedding data into unpleasant parts.

The suggestion to eliminate the size of the OP_RETURN size will have a profound effect on the way the Bitcoin button sends and stores data. Currently, Bitcoin Core applies the default 80-byte limit to the OP_RETURN output, limiting the type and amount of data that can be included in this OPCODE. Removal of this limit does not change the Bitcoin consensus rules, but changes the online method of transaction buttons, making it more spacious to use OP_Return. This reduces the incentive for users to hide data in the eyewitness field, but content-based filtering transactions are more difficult than challenging current practices like Ocean. The discussion revolves around whether it protects Bitcoin’s functionality or damages its core neutral principle.

in short,: The discussion of Bitcoin transaction filtration is not only a technical issue, but also a story about the philosophy and future of the network. Should Bitcoin be a simple or open currency system for creative applications? The answer reconstructs the way Bitcoin determines neutrality, management, and its role in the cryptocurrency world. If consensus is not reached, the risk of erosion of faith in separating networks and decentralising is enormous. This war, like its previous era, is an important test of Bitcoin’s adaptability and vitality in the digital age.

Don’t forget to follow the bitfinex Vietnam Community telegram, Twitter & Facebook To update articles, information and events as soon as possible!