Miracles or Scams, Analyze the Controversy of Bitcoin In_script_ions

[TL；DR]:

Recently, Bitcoin Core developer Luke criticized the inion that “spam” needs to be banned, which has sparked widespread debate in the community.

Opponents of Luke generally believe that the emergence of inions is a significant innovation in the Bitcoin eco, and that network congestion cannot be alleviated by banning inions. Luke’s proposal is too subjective.

Investors should understand the differences in market comparison of token inions and make corresponding investment decisions in a timely manner regarding the frequent fluctuations of inions such as ORDI.

Introduction

Recently, Luke, the developer of Bitcoin Core, criticized Inion for using Bitcoin’s vulnerabilities to post spam on the Bitcoin network, stating that Inion should be banned. This statement quickly spread and sparked widespread debate in the Bitcoin community, and Inion leaders such as ORDI and SATS have also experienced frequent fluctuations due to huge community disagreements.

The article will provide a detailed overview of the event and provide readers with a detailed discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the popular inions compared to the Bitcoin network.

Luke Accuses “Spam” of Filtering Ordinal Inions

On December 6th, Bitcoin Core developer Luke Dashjr expressed his concerns and criticism on Twitter about the current popularity of ordinal inions.

He pointed out that inions are exploiting a vulnerability in the Bitcoin Core client to send “spam” to the blockchain, which will soon be fixed in his Bitcoin Knots V25.1.

Source: X@LukeDashjr

Luke pointed out that the inion is exploiting Bitcoin’s vulnerability to post spam messages to the Bitcoin network. He believes that protocols like Ordinals are “worthless,” which seriously affects the normal use of BTC as a peer-to-peer cryptocurrency.

Meanwhile, Luke proposed a way to restrict inions by adding a review mechanism in the client to force nodes to directly delete non-standard Taproot transactions, and nodes no longer delay such transactions to achieve the goal of prohibiting inions.

Once this viewpoint was put forward, it immediately sparked sustained debate in the community. Although Luke’s remarks only received support from a few OGs such as Samson Mow, Giacomo Zucco, and William Casarin, he still took the lead in taking measures against ordinal inions.

It is reported that Ocean Mine, founded by Luke Dashjr, has started using the fixed version of Bitcoin Knots to filter inion transactions. A global sales utive at Ocean, who claims to be Bitcoin Mechanical, even said, “it’s pointless to discuss censorship with people who are not familiar with it. We will filter out the inion garbage, and of course, you can freely mine in other mines and continue to spread FUD.”

Another less noticed piece of information is that the US National Vulnerability Database (NVD) marked Bitcoin inions as a cybersecurity risk on December 9, calling for attention to security vulnerabilities in the development of Ordinals Protocol in 2022. This database is managed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a subsidiary of the US Department of Commerce.

Many People Are Optimistic About the Inion Eco and Criticize Luke for Being Too Subjective

The market view of Bitcoin inions shows a clear divergence.

On the one hand, members who support Luke believe that the significance of the inion is not even that significant and may even have a negative impact on the price of the Bitcoin. The other faction believes that the emergence of inions is a significant innovation in the Bitcoin eco, and that network congestion cannot be alleviated by banning the trading of inions. Luke’s proposal is too subjective.

For example, Miner representative and F2pool founder Shenyu expressed in the community that BTC is not ETH, and the developers say it doesn’t matter. If the developer insists on upgrading, then he can fork it out himself. But at the critical juncture of Bitcoin spot ETF approval, the possibility of forking is very low.

Technology developer @jolestar tweeted that due to the popularity of inions, many people need to interact with Bitcoin RPC, increasing the number of Bitcoin full nodes. This way, more users are concerned about what is recorded in the ledger, and inions actually improve the security of Bitcoin networks. The inion is a discovery of the value of Bitcoin as a DA and has significant implications for the Bitcoin eco. It is a feature rather than a bug.

Source: bitnodes.io

The founder of SlowMist, Yu Xian, also believes that Luke’s viewpoint is too subjective and difficult to implement. He tweeted, stating that the viewpoint of the core developer of Bitcoin has stimulated him, and if everything goes as he wishes, future versions of Bitcoin will fix what he believes to be a vulnerability: the serial number/inion is a vulnerability of Bitcoin, a type of spam attack. At the beginning, there was a debate about these, and now it may be a surgical intervention… but personally, I feel that there is no need to fix this. Due to the introduction of Taproot (a good thing), the impact of accidentally opening this magic box is not only a bunch of Spam, but also the activity of the Bitcoin eco, which is not just about serial number/inions.

In summary, supporters of inions generally believe that inions such as Ordinals represent the potential and future of Bitcoin. Despite the recent popularity of inions causing network congestion, there are still many solutions available for discussion and exchange, and a one size fits all approach like Luke is not sufficient.

The Game is Still Ongoing, Focusing on Intensified Price Fluctuations

In fact, community disagreements have been common throughout Bitcoin’s history.

In the early stages of the popularity of inions in May this year, Bitcoin Core developers questioned the inions and pointed out in dev email that projects similar to BRC-20 generated huge transaction volumes, and BTC networks experienced severe congestion, resulting in the inability of “real Bitcoin transaction” to be packaged and linked properly.

If traced back even further, Satoshi Nakamoto, the founder of Bitcoin, should have been the first creator of the inion, recording information from The Times about the government rescuing banks in the founding block.

The statement “the Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on Brink of second bailout for banks” is also considered a declaration of the birth of Bitcoin, reflecting Satoshi Nakamoto’s disappointment with the traditional financial and his ideals in comparison to Bitcoin.

Source: Public image

Of course, it is not just Satoshi Nakamoto, the founder, who has brought important value information into the Bitcoin network. In fact, more than 33 million inions have been created and transferred so far, but the network congestion caused by inions trading may also be unexpected.

However, this community disagreement is not without resolution. The Ordinals Inion Protocol is an off chain consensus protocol, and as long as the indexer and the community reach a consensus, there can actually be many solutions. The most “halal” lightning network has recently been trying a more efficient and cost-effective inion solution, NostrAssets. Dashjr has also recently softened its sharp attitude, stating that “we can bring benefits to the Bitcoin eco without eliminating all inions.”

Of course, for investors, the current situation of fragmented consensus that has not yet been bridged will trigger a series of frequent high fluctuations in inions and tokens, which is very alarming.

After Luke announced on December 6th that he would fix the Taproot vulnerability and ban Bitcoin inions, the price of BRC20 token leader ORDI fell more than 20% from $65. With the emergence of more public opinion supporting the inions eco, the bullish sentiment has been repaired and prompted ORDI to reach a new high. Later, as Bitcoin experienced a short-term sharp decline on the 11th, ORDI and other tokens were also passively lowered, and the volatility of the high level ORDI was significantly higher than that of other sector tokens.

Source: Gate.io

Overall, the divergence between the market and the inions on special coins is a complex and important issue. It involves multiple aspects such as the performance, security, and future development of Bitcoin. Meanwhile, for the Bitcoin community, balancing the interests of all parties and maintaining community stability and development is also a challenging task. As for investors, it is crucial to understand the differences in the market compared to the inions on Bitcoin and make corresponding investment decisions in a timely manner.