According to foreign media, the debate over the spatial use of blocks did not cool down following the setback of the Bitcoin BIP-110 soft fork proposal to limit non-financial data. Ripple's former Chief Technical Officer, now CTO Emeritus David Schwartz, has publicly stated that, in the public block chain, the view of others as to whether the transaction is “valueable” is not important as long as the user pays for the resource.
BIP-110 Upgrade of disputes after frustration
It was mentioned that BIP-110 had attempted to temporarily limit the content of the data volume on the chain, but the proposal had not advanced. Subsequently, the Bitcoin network emerged as “higher” blocks, in which a large number of NFT inscriptions and custom scripts were referred to as “waste” or “waste trade”.
The debate focused on whether the bitcoin block space should serve only traditional transfers or whether it should remain neutral and allow data-competing block resources in any chain that was willing to pay. The article mentioned that, in the recent Bitcoin block 962266, traditional currency transfers were not high and more space was occupied by inscriptions and scripts, which was seen as the latest example of an open-use side.
Schwartz emphasizes cost-market priority.
The core view of Schwartz is that the public block chain should not be left to the subjective judgement of others to determine what uses can exist. As long as certain types of transactions pay for the resources they occupy at a cost comparable to other transactions, the economic balance of the network is not undermined.
Under this logic, criticism of over-consumption of resources is established only when the user has not paid for the resources; once the cost mechanism has functioned properly and continues to demand a ban on a particular type of transaction, it is no longer simply an issue of efficiency, but closer to artificial screening of network uses.
The debate points to bitcoin neutrality.
According to the article, the core of this debate is not just the NFT motto or script itself, but whether Bitcoin continues to maintain the principle of neutrality of “pay is available”. Schwartz also stated that there should be a high degree of scepticism about the idea of further requirements for the prohibition of certain transactions, as this would make the block chain more like the traditional financial system where access is decided by a centralized institution.
The missing BIP-110 did not end this disagreement, but instead gave a new focus to “who has the right to define the use on the effective chain”. At least in the current discussion, the cost market, rather than subjective value judgements, remains the central basis for supporting an open network.