Debate Over Bitcoin Spam Inscription Intensifies
The creator of Syphed, who is also an economist and author of the Bitcoin Standard, has weighed in on the ongoing discussion surrounding spam inscriptions on the Bitcoin network. He suggested that perhaps they could “throw some SATs” to support full-time developers aimed at making spam on Bitcoin more challenging and costly.
This comment came as a response to a thread initiated by the pseudonymous developer Grassfedbitcoin, wherein Bitcoin Core was urged to merge Pull Request #28408.
GrassFedbitcoin argued that the absence of robust inscription filtering tools leads to unnecessary bloat on the blockchain, which in turn undermines Bitcoin’s role as a financial protocol. “No one who runs a node wants to relay the inscription,” he stated, insisting that prior increases in Op_return limits were based on incorrect assumptions. He advocated for a configurable default policy that would prevent the use of Bitcoin for storing JPEGs, rather than financial information.
Blockstream’s CEO, Adam Back, countered this proposal, characterizing inscription filtering as a sort of “arms race.” He pointed out that spam data embedded in Bitcoin transactions can be endlessly modified through coding structures, necessitating continuous updates to filtering tools.
Ammous drew a parallel between Bitcoin spam and email spam, suggesting that it’s a challenging but worthwhile endeavor to expedite the “bankruptcy” of spammers. He clarified that this fight against spam doesn’t equate to censorship, explaining that node operators already dismiss invalid transactions. “So, noderunners trying to eliminate spam are just as effective as those perpetuating it,” he remarked.
The discussion attracted comments from various users, with one individual proposing that core developers should view spam coding employees from a specific startup as “unwilling QA engineers” and standardize their tactics.
Ammous built on this idea, recommending the development of spam tools and calling for a denunciation of external developers hired to overwhelm the system.
This back-and-forth illustrates the persistent tensions within the Bitcoin community regarding the network’s intended use. Inscriptions seem to keep the network engaged, prompting both technical responses and critiques of those defending spam activities, which appear to be rising. A report from Mempool Research dated February 4th noted that the rise of inscriptions might elevate the average block size of the Bitcoin network to around 4 megabytes per block, while the current average block size hovers around 1.5 MB.
