A new round of the debate between the bitcoin knot and the bitcoin knot on “arbitrary data” and virtual policy roams through X, but the bones of the argument are older than many. “Good reading. TL; DR: All that was said about Core Vs Knots has already been said about 15 years ago.”
The 2010 battle on the spirit of bitcoin that has never ended
The historical line dates back directly to December 2010, when Satoshi Nakamoto is charging Bitcoin 0.3.18. This version quietly presented the “ISSTANDARD () to” includes only known types of transactions “, which is a defensive step designed to reduce the attack surface from strange text programs. The SATOSHI version noticed the change: “Check the ISSTANDARD () to include only the types of transactions known in the blocks.”
The first discussion on Blockchain’s arbitrary data in December 2010 and Satoshi participated
On December 8, 2010, Satoshi released a Bitcoin 0.3.18 version, which included a standard examination, to include only known types of transactions
Bitmex Research (Pitmexresearch) September 29, 2025
The examination sparked what many participants described as the first conflict of the real referee of Bitcoin. Within hours, the forum users are divided on whether to restrict non -standard transactions will neutralize legitimate experiences such as Bitdns or simply protect the small network. The thread, which is kept by the Satoshi Nakamoto Institute, picks up the basic rift lines that appeared in 2025.
On the permitted side, the user “Da2CE7” argued that the fees will justify everything: “The transaction fee will pay for the generation of the series in the future … [others] You want to include carefully made transactions … you should include appropriate compensation. ” Jeff Jarzik Such a situation was shot “will be careful for people who use bitcoin coins … as a criticism as intended”, because the non -transient uses would provide fees and pay payments.
They have argued, who are pushing the minimum deportation restrictions, that the incentives of miners will bulldoze any guard at the customer level: “All miners must have an interest in including any and all transactions that carry the fees … The restrictions imposed on the transfer of these transactions must be removed, at least.” Garzik warned that if unwanted messages for data increases from TX to annoying levels, “currency users will break-and that” law enforceable data “would raise different and more severe risks.
Decally, Satoshi and Javin Andrene It is close to the white list approach as a preparation for practical safety, leaving the AJAR door for the uses of data designed for this. Javin explained that the well -known molds that were safe from the white menu were “the right thing to do”, as it drew an analogy on web safety failure when relying on the black list.
In a follow -up, Satoshi wrote: “I came to agree with Gavin about the white menu when I realized how quickly adding new types of transactions,” and supported a path for small data obligations: “I also support a kind of third treatment of abusive time data.”
If today you feel back to déjà vu, the weekend extract of Bitmex Research is the lost Rosetta stone. Their thread tracks the schedule of discussion – an early reaction to Rhorning for the new standard rules 0.3.18; He insists that the incentives of mines will exceed the failure to pay. Garzik resistance to “non -currency data” price use; The lack of relief to society about what is happening when the professor’s notebook is not subject to change with illegal content.
Researchers note that even a correction agent eliminated restrictions at the time, which confirms how the virtual agent and the policy of miners always a disputed layer.
There are two types of fast food from the 2010 record. First, the discrimination of “Policy Vs Protocol” – what Bitcoin could do in exchange for what the reference execution or me by default – a pressure valve for innovation and a magnet for controversy. The email of Satoshi 0.3.18 makes it normal to live in this gray area of incentives and rules, not the rules of consensus.
Second, almost every argument was published in Basic reverse skirmishes He had a predecessor in the first “upcoming” battle: neutral for the market in exchange for swelling of the application layer; The right to pay against the mass area against the social cost of permanent data; And whether the tightening of the default settings protects the Bitcoin’s cash function or suffocates its benefit for the time and proof. The archive clearly shows the position of “removal of restrictions” from “restrictions” to Garzik’s warning that the generalized data “has a distinct possibility of the degrading service for digital cash.”
At the time of the press, BTC was traded at $ 113,071.
Distinctive image created with Dall.e, Chart from TradingView.com
Editing process For Bitcoinist, it is focused on providing accurate, accurate and non -biased content. We support strict resource standards, and each page is subject to a diligent review by our team of senior technology experts and experienced editors. This process guarantees the integrity of our content, importance and value of our readers.
