-
@ John Carvalho
2025-05-01 08:07:48
Bitcoin's blockspace is a free market (and a fee market!)
Each byte bids for inclusion according to the fee it carries, whether that byte represents a coffee payment or an encoded inscription protocol. The current debate over expanding OP_RETURN is a reminder that the ledger does not interpret meaning; it only records weight in bytes and payment in bitcoin fees.
There is no value stored on Bitcoin's ledger other than the literal number of bitcoin units recorded in your UTXO.
That means there is no "digital energy" in there, no dollars, no "store of value," nothing except a number in a database.
When you spend bitcoin, for whatever reason, it is your counterparty that decides what those units are worth. They are free to discriminate them, or you, in any way they can get away with.
They can also attribute extra value to them for any reason: a ticker price on their favorite exchange, a JPG forever attached to the output, a USDT anchor, or a private protocol no one even knows about for a VIP club membership.
All value is subjective, so it is impossible to know the trade value of every transaction merely by looking at block data.
Your counterparty also decides when a trade is settled, not the Bitcoin blockchain. They may agree on one confirmation, or three, or zero... They might require a government‑issued ID or even custody of your first‑born child.
Do not confuse Bitcoin "transactions" with trades; they are only score updates in a database. All of the value is decided by people and made competitive by the open market.
Why OP_RETURN Matters Right Now
Bitcoin offers an 80‑byte OP_RETURN field that lets users write data without polluting the UTXO set. As blockspace demand soared with Ordinals, BRC‑20, and Runes, people began hiding data in taproot leaves and bare multisig outputs, which never get spent and therefore swell the UTXO set, driving up node costs.
Relaxing, or even removing, the 80‑byte cap would invite this data back into a provably unspendable, prunable space; the chain stays neutral - every byte either pays or waits.
Is this the right thing to do? Personally, I don't care. Things are working exactly how everyone should have expected.
How to Think About "Spam" vs "Use"
Fee neutrality: If it pays the market fee, it belongs. By design. Hidden context: You can never fully know the value or trade behind the onchain transaction.
UTXO preservation: Favor prunable data (witness & OP_RETURN) over perpetually unspent outputs.
Censorship fragments the mempool: Policy bans force operators to patch their nodes or run alternate relay networks, creating isolated pools, unreliable fee estimates, and extra burden for wallets that must navigate around invisible gaps.
Takeaway
We have no objective tool for classifying "usefulness" on‑chain. The cleanest rule remains: pay the fee, get the block. If you want a lean UTXO set, widen OP_RETURN and let economics, not censorship, do the pruning.
A Meta Recommendation
Bitcoin Core is the de-facto reference implementation, not the policy police. Any subjective rule, whether it targets memes, stablecoins, transaction flags, or inscriptions, can and should be handled in downstream forks, plug‑ins, or user‑level policy. Node operators already tweak mempool size, relay settings, and script limits to match their own risk models. Pretending they cannot already only muddies the debate.
A sure path to minimizing controversy is to keep Bitcoin Core truly core: compact, predictable, and neutral. Every extra rule adds maintenance overhead and widens the surface for accidental forks. By shipping only what consensus requires and leaving higher‑layer policy to the market, Core Devs protect the common base layer we all rely on, and their own sanity.
Bonus Take: 🌶️ Shrink Blocks, or Repeal Taproot
If a transaction looks like spam to you, the blunt but honest remedy is to cut capacity, not to micromanage content. The four‑megabyte block weight and Taproot's flexible script paths are exactly what unlocked today's wave of inscriptions and tokens. If that bothers you, push to shrink the block size or even roll back Taproot and own the trade‑offs. Anything else is selective outrage dressed up as policy.
(NOTE: I do not support any current fork or mempool policy proposals.)