Adamback is ally to Bitcoin’s “Customer War”

On August 17th, Adam Back from Blockstream Co -Founder said “probably.” The following versions of the Bitcoin Core Client runV.30, its release is scheduled for October.

He said that in response to a publication on Social Network X, which highlighted the shift from core to knots. Most restrictive policies in transaction management.

Bitcoin Core is Bitcoin node reference software. Version 30 introduces incremental changes. Most discussed is the increased data limit for OP_Return.

The new threshold, previously limited to 83 bytes, expands the next capacity OPCODE Up to 100,000 bytes on op_30 core Return Promote data registration (Sometimes called)jpeg–spam” to include text, images, or non-essential files), and, according to the escapee, leave the network for mere financial purposes.

This revision has split opinions and led to the fact that in recent months the Bitconner community has become immersed in “customer war.”

In his recent message on X, Back said:

“I’m probably going to run Core 30. The option is, if someone writes it, it’s a patch for ‘preferred peering’. Perhaps there is a solid argument that the risk of mining centralization is greater than JPEG spam.

Adam Back, founder of Blockstream.

term «Priority Peering» What is mentioned on the back refers to the configuration of a Bitcoin node This allows you to connect with other nodes preferentially. This shares a specific policy for accepting or rejecting a transaction.

This allows node operators to customize their interaction with the network and prioritize connections with nodes to suit their preferences, such as filtering transactions using large OP_RETURN data.

However, this practice You can fragment the network If the node is divided into groups with the opposite policy.

Meanwhile, the “risk of mining centralization” that Adambak highlights is a fundamental concern for Bitcoin. Mining is the process in which transactions are validated and new blocks are created, dominated by large pools and industrial miners.

If a node imposes a strict filter on transactions using OP_RETURN, the miners containing these transactions can be excluded by a particular node, reducing access to the network.

This could lead to more concentration of mining power. The hands of those who accept all the dealsIncludes data to be considered.spam”.

Buck argues that this risk exceeds OP_Return’s abuse because “spam can’t really stop.”

Answers to Adambak’s proverb

Bitcoin mechanic, a Bitcoin and enthusiast at Bitcoin Knot, challenged the back position and answered the director of Blockstream.

“Spam filters don’t centralize mining. This is the theoretical point that must be stopped from being used as justifications to force nodes to function as public spam retransmission services.”

Bitcoin mechanics and participants in the Bitcoin community.

The mechanic argues that this should not be forced to broadcast transactions with non-essential data. Overload your network without benefiting users.

Instead, miners suggest that they decide which transactions to include in the block. They should be responsible for filtering spam.

Reply: «Node can do what it needs. The policy is on the customer’s side and is not a consensus rule and cannot be applied».

Here, Buck emphasizes that the filtering policy is a separate decision of the node operator. There is no obligation to be imposed by the Bitcoin Protocol.

However, for mechanics, filters are a useful tool for securing networks, and have described the centralization argument as an exaggeration.

The exchange continued by defending his position: «I spam Like anyone, But filtering doesn’t workbecause there are probably some node operators that you might be worried about using.”Priority peering“Miners containing spam JPEG if necessary».

Essentially, the back suggests a filter such as 42 bytes from the knot Do not stop using OP_RETURN For larger data, the decentralized nature of Bitcoin allows nodes and miners to act according to their own incentives.

BACK analysis shows that if miners and other nodes use a wider range of data to prioritize transactions, and transactions that may affect network connectivity and decentralization, filters can be strictly isolated from the network.

We also compared the debate with the debate «Big Blocker» (larger block support in Bitcoin) minimized the risk of centralization.

For him, mining already faces centralization challenges, and limiting transactions could make this situation worse.

On the other hand, the mechanics argued that forced nodes to broadcast unnecessary data is equivalent to a “call on altruism” that contradicts Bitcoin’s incentives.

Finally, the Bitcoin mechanic was proposed by miners rather than nodes. They should avoid including transactions that contain unrelated data“They work for us, but not the other way around.”

This point emphasizes philosophical differences. Buck prioritizes network resilience against potential departments, but mechanics defend node autonomy to protect against chain abuse.