Bitcoin Core, a community-driven free software project, has released a detailed position on transaction relay policies. The release was intended to defend its role in improving the propagation of blocks and the efficiency of the toll market, but it sparked controversy across the Bitcoin (BTC) community.
Specifically, critics argue that they open the door to spam while simultaneously challenging the spirit of Bitcoin’s decentralization.
Bitcoin Core defends relay policy amid spam controversy
Bitcoin Core outlined the goals behind transaction relay policies. It cited improved rate forecasts, faster block propagation, and improved visibility into paid transactions with improved miners’ visibility.
“The goals of transaction relations include: Predicting transactions will be mined… Speeding up block propagation… (and) help miners learn about fee pay transactions,” read the excerpt from the statement.
They emphasized that their role is not to mandate network rules, but to support distributed peer-to-peer (P2P) protocols.
“Bitcoin is a user-defined network. Bitcoin’s core contributors are not in a position to mandate what they are,” the developer wrote.
They reaffirmed that while Bitcoin Core could implement policies to stop denial of service (DOS) attacks and prevent inefficient use of block space, transactions should not be blocked “supporting economic demand and making them reliable blocks.”
This handoff approach has attracted acute criticism from members of the Bitcoin community. Among them is Luke Daschul, a veteran software developer and Ocean Protocol CTO. He completely rejected the rationale.
“Nack. The targets of the listed transaction relays are basically all wrong. Predicting what is mined is a centralization goal. Expecting spam to be mined is a defeat. Helping spam to propagate is harmful.”
This attitude coincides with the stance of self-proclaimed Nakamoto Craig Wright. Beincrypto reported in October that controversial scientist Wright filed a £91.1 billion lawsuit against Bitcoin Core and Square.
Wright challenged the core of Bitcoin and proved his adherence to Bitcoin’s original principles. His lawsuit focused on the integrity of Bitcoin’s design, not Nakamoto’s identity.
“If BTC Core wants to claim that they are a true continuation of Bitcoin, they have to do it openly and transparently, and they have to do it based on the original design. They belong to them. Wright wrote in the post.
Experts will blow up Bitcoin Core stance if it is harmful and centralized
Dashjr, also known as Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton, is the creator of Ocean Bitcoin Mining Pool. He argued that Bitcoin’s core position “contradicts itself.”
On the one hand, they condemn out-of-band relays and accept them as a necessary workaround. According to DashJR, the policy gives him excessive legitimacy to his consideration of blockchain abuse.
“It treats blockchain and node abuse as a legitimate ‘use case’ rather than actually a DOS attack,” the developer added.
The conflict highlights ongoing tensions within the Bitcoin ecosystem. Should the network remain completely neutral and fee-driven, or should we actively advocate for what appears to be harmful behavior?
Some community members support the Bitcoin Core neutrality stance and suggest filtering based on the risk of undermining censorship resistance based on the subjective definition of “spam.”
From this perspective, the fee market must decide which transactions will be processed, as it is supported by economic demand and miner incentives.
Nevertheless, Bitcoin’s core acknowledged the controversial nature of its stance.
“We recognize that this view is not universally held by all users and developers,” the developer wrote.
Recognizing this, they aim to adjust the transaction acceptance rules with Bitcoin’s long-term health and the rational self-interest of miners.
The broader implications of this policy debate could shape the future of trade censorship and miner incentives. More importantly, it can affect the balance between security and openness of Bitcoin protocols.
As communities tackle increasing demand for block space and diverse use cases such as ordinal and data embedding, the problem is: For now, Bitcoin Core has made its place clear.
Nevertheless, in systems without central authorities, the consensus lies in the users, miners and node operators of the network.
Disclaimer
In compliance with Trust Project guidelines, Beincrypto is committed to reporting without bias and transparent. This news article is intended to provide accurate and timely information. However, we recommend that readers independently verify the facts and consult with experts before making decisions based on this content. Please note that our terms and conditions, privacy policy and disclaimer have been updated.
