The "garbage information" debate in Bitcoin: the conflict between censorship and openness

Source: Criptonoticias Original Title: The “spam” in Bitcoin splits the identity of the network Original Link:

The “Junk Information” Problem in Bitcoin

• Antonopoulos advocates for tolerating non-monetary data on Bitcoin to avoid politicization of the network.
• The debate around “spam” ranges from outright rejection to frustration over a lack of progress.

Background Introduction

Andreas Antonopoulos is a recognized Bitcoin educator and advocate, and he has joined the controversy regarding the use of non-monetary data on the network. This debate is dividing Bitcoin users into two camps.

Some people consider embedding this data as “junk information” because it takes up space without moving BTC, while others argue that Bitcoin is open and allows any use as long as fees are paid.

The debate between users and developers regarding the impact of transactions that add arbitrary information has intensified since last month. This data includes images, text, and files, which are inserted via the OP_RETURN opcode.

Antonopoulos's position

Within the framework of controversy, Antonopoulos released a video on November 24. He argued that “any data can be encoded as any other data,” making it difficult to draw the line between legal and illegal. According to him:

One person's junk is another person's content. The power to decide what is allowed and what is not is dangerous, as it leads to censorship.

The core of his argument is scrutiny. If a group of developers defines what types of information can be included, the boundaries will shift from technical to political.

According to his explanation, if Bitcoin developers indicate that they can exclude content, “then they will be required to review it in all jurisdictions where they reside.”

Community response

Luke Dashjr is a senior developer of the Bitcoin protocol, the main maintainer of Bitcoin Knots, and an opponent of non-monetary uses of Bitcoin, refuting Andreas's analysis, although without going into depth.

“In summary, he doesn't know what he is talking about and didn't even bother to study it,” Luke wrote while questioning Antonopoulos' position on the use of OP_RETURN.

In various discussions on platform X, some people expressed support for Andreas's viewpoint, while others took the opposite stance.

For example, Sasha Hodder, the founder of a law firm, clearly warned: “If developers can review Bitcoin, they will ultimately be forced to review it.”

PlanB Network Chairman Giacomo Zucco expressed regret over the regression of the debate:

My goodness, bringing the discussion back to “spam doesn't exist, filtering is censorship” is absolutely foolish and outdated. We are making progress towards how to realistically filter spam. The net effect is negative.

These positions indicate a spectrum, from completely rejecting any form of filtering due to concerns about centralized censorship, to feeling frustrated about the lack of progress in obtaining practical technological solutions to internet abuse.

Advantages of OP_RETURN

To illustrate the widespread nature of the issue, educators cited several examples of information that have circulated online: “Ordinals, shit pegs, JPEG, NFT, garbage… Bible verses.”

This list is used to indicate that non-monetary data may be trivial, artistic, arbitrary, or even problematic. However, in his view, their existence cannot be selectively eliminated without introducing a mechanism that grants veto power.

Antonopulos insists that banning these uses will not solve the problem. He claims that if the protocol makes it difficult to store data in specific ways, users will seek other more intrusive methods:

If we make OP_RETURN too difficult, people will put content in other places in the protocol. I would prefer people to put it on OP_RETURN so that we can discard it and not load it forever.

When Andreas mentioned “we can discard it”, he was referring to a feature of OP_RETURN that allows including the material in an area that the network can ignore without compromising security.

The data embedded by this opcode will not be permanently anchored in every copy of the network. This instruction marks the information as unnecessary for validating currency transactions.

Therefore, nodes can “prune” it, that is, remove it from their storage without affecting the integrity of the payment history.

When Antonopulos talks about “discarding it,” he refers to the fact that this data can be optionally stored or directly ignored in nodes that want to run with less space. If the same data is hidden in other parts of the protocol, where it cannot be distinguished from strict monetary content, this is not possible.

OP_RETURN splits in Bitcoin

Despite Antonopulos's explanation, a user named Zatoichi on platform X referred to his position as “incompetent”.

He advocates for restricting or allowing certain types of data based on inclusion methods (such as using OP_RETURN or the witness area of transactions), which does not imply exercising content moderation, but rather applying protocol rules.

He also pointed out that the witness (the data segment introduced by SegWit that stores signatures and certain optional elements) is four times cheaper in terms of relative weight.

Finally, due to this lower cost, he argues that any new type of non-monetary data is likely to migrate there instead of OP_RETURN, which would render Antonopulos's proposal invalid.

As a result, the debate over “spam” has divided the identity of Bitcoin users, prompting them to take a stance on which uses should be considered legitimate and which should not.