Original |odaily Planet**.
At 9 a.m. today, Bitcoin Core developer Luke Dashjr posted on Platform X: "Inscription is exploiting a vulnerability in Bitcoin Core, a Bitcoin Core client, to spam the blockchain. Since 2013, Bitcoin Core has allowed users to set an additional data size limit ('-datacarriersize') when relaying or mining transactions. By obscuring its data into a program**, the inscription bypasses this limitation. This vulnerability was recently reported in Bitcoin Knots v251 . Since my workflow was severely disrupted at the end of last year (v24 was skipped entirely), the fix took longer than usual. In the upcoming v26 release, Bitcoin Core still has vulnerabilities. I can only hope it will get a final fix before v27 next year. ”
It's not hard to see that, in Luke's eyes, the recently wildly sought after inscription is a bug. Regarding Luke's remarks and judgments, there are also the following important points worth paying attention to:
What happens to the ordinals after the fix?
luke：Ordinals and BRC-20 will cease to exist。This is achieved by setting the data carrier size to zero.
What is '-datacarriersize'?
In Bitcoin transactions, op return is a script opcodeIt allows some data to be attached to the transaction。'-DataCarrierSize' allows you to set an upper limit on the payload size of the OP Return opcode. By default, Bitcoin Core nodes are limited to 80 bytes in data carrier size. By using '-datacarriersize',This limit can be changed to allow for larger payloads。This seems to Luke Dashjr to be a bug and needs to be fixed.
Is there a specific date for Bitcoin Core v2 7?
There is no definite date, so even if a decision is made to revise it, it will not happen in the near future.
What are the implications for regular Bitcoin holders?
Luke: It affects the efficiency and integrity of the blockchain, which in turn indirectly affects security and value.
According to @wooooer, a developer of the Bitcoin ecosystem, some key details were found after Luke's ** research on knots, where Luke set two main parameter limits for filtering so-called fraudulent bitcoin transactions:
The DataCarrierSize parameter is mainly limited to the size of the data carried by OP Return, i.e. those that write data to the output part of the utxo. If this restriction is enabled, the affected protocols will include:colored coins、omnilayer、runesWait.
The MaxScriptSize parameter restricts the TaprootScript-based inscription protocol, whose data is engraved in the UTXO witness field. If this restriction is in effect, the affected agreements will include:ordinals、brc-20Wait.
Wooooer further stated that if Luke's comments are eventually implemented, the default limits for these two parameters could result in only the smallest on-chain footprint left in the Bitcoin ecosystemTaproot Asset and RGB
Shenyu: Bitcoin is not Ethereum, and it doesn't matter what the developer said. Upgrades require miner votes, and if they are opposed, they cannot be upgraded unless they are forked. (Note: F2Pool ranks third in Bitcoin hashrate, first by Foundry USA and second by Antpool.) ）
In response to a user commenting that "most miners would choose to record inscription transactions because it makes more economic sense", Luke himself argued: ".Bitcoin operates on the assumption that most miners are honest and have no malicious intent on it。Your ideology of pursuing only short-term profits is just another ideology, and a bad oneThat is, it believes that the miners will not accept the deal because the inscription is a malicious act.
Chen Mo, founder of BV DAO: Bitcoin Core developers think that the inscription is a bug, and the next version of the fix means that BRC-20 will disappear. In fact, it is the ass that decides the head, and in the world pattern of bitcoin, miners, developers, and capital, it is difficult to say who is the real speaker. Historically, Bitcoin has had many forks and has been supported by miners, but in reality there has always been only one BTC. Inscription ecological miners are indeed relatively large beneficiaries, so there is a high probability that the inscription will continue to exist, but whether capital is really willing to pay for the inscription is another matter, but from another perspective, whether the inscription army can really do a Bitcoin fork of ecological prosperity?
Slow Mist Cosine: I personally don't feel the need to fix this, because the impact of accidentally opening this magic box due to the introduction of taproot (a good thing) is not only a bunch of spam, but also the activity of the Bitcoin ecosystem, which is not just a set of serial inscriptions.
In summary, the main voice of the community is still optimistic about the Bitcoin ecosystem, believing that inscriptions (ordinals) have opened up a new channel for development and will continue to develop under the joint drive of multiple interests.
In fact, FUD has never stopped since the birth of Ordinals, and Adam Back, the inventor of PoW, instigated an attack on Ordinals in February;lukeIn May, it was saidOrdinals are worthless（worthless）；Samson Mow, CEO of JA N3, said the latest hype surrounding Bitcoin Ordinals and BRC-20 tokens is unsustainable and will disappear in a few months.
How the Bitcoin ecosystem develops is not a word, and it still needs to be wrestled with many parties, but history always spirals, and these FUDs have never stopped the Ordinals from moving forward, but have further prospered and developed, evolved to multiple protocols, and expanded to multiple chains, and the Spring of the Bitcoin ecosystem will continue.