Do BTC Developers Want to "Strangle In_script_ions"? Will Your $ORDI And $SATS No Longer Exist?

[TL；DR]

Bitcoin Core developer Luke Dashjr posted on social media stating that inions are just a bug, sending spam messages to the blockchain.

The recent popularity of BTC Inion assets led by $ORDI is self-evident, which immediately caused panic and led to a rapid drop in ORDI prices on December 6th. Everyone is curious - will what Luke said come true? Will one day your $ORDI and $SATS suddenly evaporate?

Source: X

Introduction

In the past two days, with positive news such as the Federal Reserve’s interest rate cut forecast and new Bitcoin ETF news, BTC has surged, even exceeding $44000, and the BTC eco is one of the star level sectors. However, in the current era where the entire crypto industry is strongly FOMO driven by the ORDI and BRC20 tokens, Luke Dashjr’s statement that “the orders protocol and its derivatives have exploited vulnerabilities, it’s just a scam” has almost caused a thousand Waves.

After all, Luke has a special identity. As a developer of Bitcoin core, he joined Bitcoin’s construction work in 2011, which naturally makes him a highly influential type in the eyes of many players.

The trend of ORDI has become even more dramatic, as it has risen in the past and fallen in the past two days; However, the story behind it doesn’t seem to be that simple.

Source: Gate.io

Why is the Inion a Bug

According to Luke himself, Ordinals did not exist from the beginning, it was all a scam. The vulnerability here is the spam attack of “inions.”

Originally, Bitcoin blocks had a 1M limit, but the Ordinals protocol stored file data through taproot, creating NFTs on each device, allowing Bitcoin blocks to load data that was not meant to be.

“These data are placed on the chain in ‘Witness’, and both blocks and transactions bypass the 1M limit. This way, 4M can be used, and 400M can also be used! This is not innovation, but an attack on vulnerabilities.”

Source: unsplash

It is not difficult to see that Luke, as the builder, has a firm attitude towards this, and not to mention whether BRC20 is a scam, the method of inscribing is indeed not native to BTC. It can be said that this is a relatively clever operation, and it also adds a lot of unnecessary load to the network, which is a fact. At present, the BRC20 eco still lacks infrastructure and practical applications, and is stuck in the stage of meme hype market sentiment.

According to the nature of blockchain, all data is on the chain, and all nodes need to be synchronized. However, excessively large data can lead to higher ledger fork and orphan rates. “Bitcoin does not have smart contracts, it is just an accounting tool that only records property transfers. It is concise and has a reasonable power model.”

The series of assets derived from the Ordinals protocol are like “secondary creations” on Bitcoin, but they have their own limitations in the trading process: the logic of Ordinals is to parse and sort text, without a unified consensus computing layer; Transactions need to be completed through hanging orders; When there are too many operators, the huge gas fees cause unnecessary losses to other players using the network, and also increase network security risks.

Will BRC20 Really Disappear? Where is the Permission Boundary for Developers?

So the question that comes with it is very obvious, can Luke really make the inion disappear?

Luke’s contribution is beyond doubt. Currently, he ranks among the top 11 builders in Bitcoin Core, and his attitude towards Bitcoin is also quite fundamentalist, which will make his remarks more credible.

But first of all, the Bitcoin model is a decentralized allocation, so neither Luke nor the entire development team can decide whether to keep a new product.

Bitcoin does not belong to a single owner, developers, miners, and traders, laying the foundation for this young and massive asset and forming a complex and extensive governance community. Simply put, if there are really significant changes in the new version, there are also many players who can choose not to use the new version.

Source: X

Meanwhile, Luke also acknowledged the question from netizens, “Can we use the Inion Chain, like Ethereum L2, as a solution?” Moreover, he does not have a cognitive aversion to creations such as inions, and he also stated, “It is not necessary to eliminate all inions in order to be beneficial compared to special coins.”

So for now, there is no need to worry about your inion assets disappearing. The interests of miners and traders are both high-profile demands, and no one has the right to stop them in the short term. However, it cannot be denied that everything that has happened to ORDI has indeed poured cold water on many retail players, and has also given us profound thinking: can the “inion narrative” that brings about market overheating but is easily volatile due to a single sentence continue for a long time?

Where Should the Inion Assets and BTC Eco Go

Ethereum once became a rising star in the blockchain world thanks to smart contracts - no longer just a ledger used to record virtual currency ownership, but a place where applications can be established, decentralized governance can be implemented, new forms of finance can be conducted, and content creation and gaming social networking can be done.

With the increase of network load and the emergence of L2, new solutions such as roll up and zero knowledge proof, user experience is gradually moving towards WEB2.

Luke’s vision is not to stifle inions or negate a BTC eco that draws inspiration from the Ethereum model, but to fix bugs. Similarly, if we can make it reasonable enough, then there is no need to deny the existence of a new thing.

However, his performance is not so gentle, and many players who stick to ORDI still believe that the tech savvy represented by Luke just missed the good opportunity to ride BRC20 cars, so they use this shameful way to control the market and try to profit themselves - obviously this statement is still a bit extreme. The pursuits of both sides, although conflicting, are not irreconcilable.

If there is a solution similar to L2, or if it can package off chain calculations and only upload results without compromising the performance of the entire BTC public chain, the interests of miners can also be guaranteed, and further empowerment of BTC application construction can be achieved, it seems that there is no possibility of stopping. In this way, more players who hope to invest in long-term value of currencies such as ORDI will also flock in.

Source: unsplash

Perhaps this controversy is a good “blockchain social experiment.” The technical faction represented by Luke and the speculative faction betting heavily on ORDI and SATS are not absolutely right. Whoever ultimately proposes a truly reasonable solution that can ensure the interests of each node while solving the network load problem will naturally receive more than half of the approval, not conflicting with the fundamentalist Bitcoin. This is not a simple process, but perhaps it is the embodiment of the spirit of decentralization.

By the way, it is interesting to note that although BRC20 assets such as ORDI have been hit, inions that spill over to SOLANA and ETH seem to be more sought after. Will there be any parts worth your attention? We have also explored this before, please refer to: https://www.gate.io/zh/blog_detail/3482/%E9%93%AD%E6%96%87%E8%B5%84%E4%BA%A7%E5%85%A8%E9%93%BE%E7%88%86%E5%8F%91-%E4%BB%8Ebrc20%E5%A4%96%E6%BA%A2%E5%88%B0solana%E5%92%8Cpolygon

The discussion between the two sides has brought about a short-term evaporation of the market value of individual tokens and a loss of benefits for many people. However, it helps to stimulate innovation and bring new directions to Bitcoin and even the entire crypto market. Although Luke’s resolute tone has made many people feel cold, on the other hand, in this recently overheated and irrational crypto market, occasionally having a coolant is not necessarily a bad thing.