Bitcoin Core: A Glimpse into the Mess of Transaction Relay Policies

by

Bitcoin Core, that ever-so-“community-driven” software project, has given us another splendid spectacle of ambition wrapped in confusion. In a carefully worded release, the project took a firm stance on transaction relay policies, claiming it’s working for the greater good of block propagation and fee market efficiency. Naturally, the Bitcoin (BTC) community, ever so harmonious, found this announcement to be an excellent source of debate.

Critics, however, weren’t so quick to applaud. Their concerns revolve around one simple accusation: this policy might open the floodgates to spam, all while shaking the very foundations of Bitcoin’s decentralization ethos. What’s next, a centralized Bitcoin? Who knows?

Bitcoin Core: Defending the Undefendable in the Face of Spam

In what can only be described as a beautiful blend of optimism and oblivion, Bitcoin Core outlined the grand goals of its transaction relay policy. The bullet points? Improved fee prediction, faster block propagation, and helping miners see those juicy fee-paying transactions. Marvelous!

what happens when the spam flood comes?

But wait! They weren’t done. Bitcoin Core was quick to remind everyone that it’s not in charge of dictating network rules. Instead, it’s here to assist in the decentralized peer-to-peer (P2P) protocol dance.

“Bitcoin is a network that is defined by its users… Bitcoin Core contributors are not in a position to mandate what those are,” the developers wrote. Well, at least they’re honest about not being the puppeteers.

They did, however, make one thing clear: if transactions have sustained economic demand and somehow manage to make it into blocks, they’ll let them through. A fine line to walk, wouldn’t you say?

This “hands-off” stance hasn’t gone down well in all quarters. Take Luke Dashjr, a seasoned software developer and CTO of OCEAN protocol, who wasted no time rejecting Bitcoin Core’s logic with the kind of bluntness that only years of experience can grant.

“NACK. The goals of transaction relay listed are basically all wrong. Predicting what will be mined is a centralizing goal. Expecting spam to be mined is defeatism. Helping spam propagate is harmful,” Dashjr posted on X (formerly Twitter). Ouch.

Dashjr’s opinion aligns with that of the notorious Craig Wright, the self-proclaimed Satoshi Nakamoto. Yes, you remember him—the man who’s suing Bitcoin Core for a cool £911 billion. Not that anyone’s counting, right?

NINE HUNDRED AND ELEVEN BILLION AND FIFTY MILLION HARD CRISP POUNDS STERLING OF HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS PROTECTOR OF THE REALM KING CHARLES III

— BitMEX Research (@BitMEXResearch) October 12, 2024

Wright, ever the crusader for Bitcoin’s “original” design, dared Bitcoin Core to prove its adherence to the principles that made Bitcoin a decentralized marvel in the first place. No pressure.

“If BTC Core wishes to assert that they are the true continuation of Bitcoin, they must do so openly and transparently, and they must do it on the basis of the original design. The burden of proof is theirs…” Wright wrote. Don’t we all just love a good challenge?

Experts Slam Bitcoin Core: “Centralized Nonsense!”

Luke Dashjr, a.k.a. Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton, who also founded the OCEAN Bitcoin mining pool, wasn’t done. Oh no. He lashed out at Bitcoin Core’s policy, calling it a contradiction in terms. The very policy Bitcoin Core defended—based on fee prediction and minimizing spam—was, according to Dashjr, akin to legitimizing “abuse of the blockchain and nodes as legitimate ‘use cases.’” Well, that’s one way to put it.

“It treats abuse of the blockchain and nodes as legitimate ‘use cases’ rather than the DoS attacks they actually are,” Dashjr added. Someone’s feeling feisty!

This dispute highlights a fundamental tension in the Bitcoin ecosystem: Should the network remain neutral, driven solely by fees, or should it actively defend against what some consider harmful behavior? It’s almost like choosing between preserving your soul and selling it for a fee.

Some members of the community have sided with Bitcoin Core, arguing that subjective “spam” filters could undermine Bitcoin’s famed censorship resistance. After all, it’s the fee market that determines what transactions get processed, not some arbitrary gatekeeper.

Yet, Bitcoin Core has acknowledged that its position is, shall we say, controversial. Transparency is, after all, a virtue—sometimes.

“We recognize that this view isn’t held universally by all users and developers,” they wrote. Well, that’s one way to admit a problem, I suppose.

And so, the saga continues. As Bitcoin Core seeks to navigate the murky waters of transaction relay and its long-term effects on the health of the network, one thing is certain: this debate is far from over.

The question remains, though: Who decides what’s worthy of inclusion in the Bitcoin ledger? Is it the users, the miners, or the almighty node operators? Or will we all be at the mercy of Bitcoin Core’s vision for the future? Only time will tell.

Read More

2025-06-09 15:18