Bitcoin Core's new policy sparks community controversy: Should inscriptions be considered junk transactions?

Recently, the Bitcoin Core team released a statement regarding the development of a transaction relay policy, sparking widespread discussion in the Bitcoin community. The core content of this statement is the introduction of a built-in transaction relay system, which is seen as paving the way for the removal of OP-Return block restrictions.

The reason this move has sparked heated discussions can be traced back to the rise of inscription technology two years ago. At that time, inscriptions utilized a method similar to "exploiting vulnerabilities" to store content in the OP-Return field of Bitcoin blocks, thereby circumventing the block size limit. This practice led to divisions within the Bitcoin community, forming two opposing viewpoints.

Extreme conservatives strongly oppose inscriptions. At the initiative of some developers, the second-ranked Bitcoin client Knots introduced a strict garbage filter, treating inscription transactions as garbage transactions and refusing to package them. This move had previously caused a significant drop in the price of Ordi.

In contrast, the Bitcoin Core team has taken a more moderate stance. They believe that since inscriptions can already be put on the chain through existing mechanisms, it would be better to formalize them. Therefore, they proposed a new proposal to change the capacity of OP-Return from 80KB to unlimited, effectively removing the restrictions on inscriptions.

The proposed transaction relay system is a voluntary participation mechanism aimed at preventing DoS attacks and speeding up the propagation of transaction blocks. However, it has also sparked controversy over the definition of "garbage transactions." Extreme conservatives believe that inscriptions are garbage transactions and should be banned; while the Core team holds a more open attitude, believing that only pure DoS attacks should be filtered.

Although Bitcoin Core holds over 90% of the market share among Bitcoin clients, they emphasize that they are not the "official" version. They state that Bitcoin is a user-defined network, and users have the right to choose any software and policies. To avoid controversy, the Core team even refrains from using the software's automatic update feature.

Supporters of this policy argue that it is beneficial for maintaining the security and censorship-resistant nature of the Bitcoin network. They believe that as long as inscription transactions pay the normal fees, they should be regarded as legitimate transactions. Opponents criticize this as a concession to miners, ignoring user interests.

With the advancement of technology, it is not difficult for Bitcoin blockchain in 2025 to store some text and images for nodes. Some believe that allowing Bitcoin to take on some storage functions without changing the underlying architecture is reasonable. Just like physical gold can be carved to leave a record, electronic gold should also allow for the existence of such functions.