🌟 Photo Sharing Tips: How to Stand Out and Win?
1.Highlight Gate Elements: Include Gate logo, app screens, merchandise or event collab products.
2.Keep it Clear: Use bright, focused photos with simple backgrounds. Show Gate moments in daily life, travel, sports, etc.
3.Add Creative Flair: Creative shots, vlogs, hand-drawn art, or DIY works will stand out! Try a special [You and Gate] pose.
4.Share Your Story: Sincere captions about your memories, growth, or wishes with Gate add an extra touch and impress the judges.
5.Share on Multiple Platforms: Posting on Twitter (X) boosts your exposure an
The Bitcoin core development team proposed a new transaction relay policy, causing divisions within the community.
New Controversy in the Bitcoin Core Development Community: Transaction Relay Policy Sparks Community Dispute
The Bitcoin core development community has recently entered into heated discussions due to a new statement. This statement, titled "Bitcoin Core Development and Transaction Relay Policy," has sparked significant controversy within the community, with some even comparing it to the controversial "New York Agreement."
The core content of the statement is the introduction of a built-in trading Relay system. This move is seen as paving the way for the previous decision to lift the restrictions on the OP-Return zone. To understand this controversy, we need to revisit some background from two years ago.
At that time, inscription technology began to gain popularity, using a method similar to "exploitation" to store content in the OP-Return area of Bitcoin blocks, thereby bypassing the capacity limits of Bitcoin blocks. This sparked a divergence within the Bitcoin community, forming two factions of opinion.
Extreme conservatives hold a strong opposition to inscriptions. At the initiative of some core developers, the second-ranked Bitcoin client introduced strict filters, categorizing inscription transactions as garbage transactions and refusing to include them in blocks. This action has led to significant price drops for certain tokens related to inscriptions.
The relatively moderate faction, namely the Bitcoin core development team, has adopted a different strategy. They believe that since inscriptions can already be put on-chain through existing mechanisms, it would be better to directly lift the restrictions and allow them to exist legally. Therefore, they recently proposed a new plan to suggest changing the capacity limit of OP-Return from 80KB to unlimited, effectively removing the restrictions on inscriptions.
Although the inscription craze has gradually cooled down, this type of transaction still provides extra income for miners and helps maintain network security.
Returning to the current focal point of controversy - the "Relay" system. Theoretically, Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer network, with miners connected directly to each other. However, considering the security of the actual network environment, introducing a Relay system can bring two main advantages:
In the past, different relay systems adopted their own filtering strategies, some of which were stricter while others were relatively lenient.
It is worth noting that this filtering mechanism is not equivalent to transaction review; it is primarily designed to filter out junk transactions, and users can choose not to use these features. However, the core disagreement lies in the fundamentally different definitions of "junk transactions" among the parties.
Extreme conservatives believe that the ledger itself is a garbage transaction and should be completely banned. They insist that Bitcoin should not serve as a platform for data storage. A relatively moderate faction believes that specific types of transactions should not be subject to scrutiny or restriction on the blockchain, and filters should only target those purely for DoS attacks.
These two positions represent radical and moderate spam filtering strategies, respectively. In the past, these relay systems were primarily maintained by volunteers, especially those with radical positions who strongly opposed inscriptions.
However, once the Bitcoin core development team adds moderate garbage filtering rules to the official client, it may lead to a significant shrinkage in the market share of those radical filtering rules. This situation is somewhat akin to the official suddenly announcing a certain viewpoint, which undermines other viewpoints that have spontaneously formed among the public.
Although the market share of the Bitcoin Core client currently exceeds 90%, the core development team does not consider itself to represent an "official" position. They emphasize that the Bitcoin network is defined by its users, who have the right to choose what software to use and what policies to implement. Bitcoin Core contributors do not have the authority to enforce these matters, and to avoid controversy, they even do not allow automatic software updates.
From a personal perspective, I support this update from the core development team. Just like a fence wall that is only 10 centimeters high is practically useless, if it can no longer effectively restrict, it is better to simply remove the restriction.
Although I personally have no special interest in inscriptions, I do not think they should be considered as garbage transactions. As long as normal fees are paid, they should be regarded as legitimate transactions. Inscriptions transactions pay fees based on data volume, bringing extra income to miners and helping to maintain the security of the Bitcoin network after multiple halvings.
More importantly, I firmly oppose any form of transaction censorship. If organizations like Bitcoin Core, which have a semi-official nature, start to discriminate against certain transactions that normally pay transaction fees, it could gradually evolve into transaction censorship. One of the features that Bitcoin prides itself on the most is security and no transaction censorship. Adopting mild garbage filtering rules actually benefits both of these features.
Some critics say that this is a compromise by the core development team to the miners (considering the miners' income) while neglecting the interests of users. I disagree with this viewpoint - inscription users are also users of Bitcoin.
The hardware environment is no longer what it was in 2008. By 2025, storing some text or images on the Bitcoin blockchain will not be difficult for nodes, especially since Satoshi Nakamoto himself left a news article from that time in the genesis block.
Bitcoin will never become a purely storage chain, but what’s wrong with allowing some data to be stored as an additional feature without changing the underlying architecture? Even physical gold can be engraved to leave a record, and our "electronic gold" should allow for this practice.
Therefore, I fully support the proposal from the core development team.