Bitcoin is a database.
This is an inescapable technological reality. Money itself is simply a major book, a record of who has what. Even physical cash simply distributes that “database” in the real world. You no longer have to consult against any major book to verify anything because the simple act of delivering it is that verification process. The “entries” in that major book are transmitted disconnected from some central registration. Bitcoin is simply a digital database that tries to replicate the most important property of that physics known as effective: do not need the permission of a database operator to spend your money.
Imagine the uselessness of trying to prevent people from disfiguring dollar bills. How many of you have stamped “Buy Bitcoin” in fiduciary currency? Defacting a ticket in the United States is a federal crime. You can spend 6 months in jail for it. Does that stop someone?
Do you seriously believe that could be applied anywhere? Do you remember where George is? People would seal a website on dollar bills so that people could enter serial numbers when they obtained and track where cash notes circulated geographically.
Artists make innate murals and collages in cashs. You can literally stop it.
Why is there a strain of magical thought that believes that this is simply possible because the database is digital?
By its very nature, Bitcoin requires admitting the inclusion of arbitrary data (read: data that is impossible to know or define in advance) to allow users to make transactions. He does not know how much money he will send (the Satoshi field in the results), where he will send it (the script field), in which blocks he can wish to spend it (the Nlocktime field in a transaction or the field N -Secuence in a transactions input).
Without allowing these arbitrary data pieces, it is not possible that Bitcoin exists as a system.
Metaprocol
A bitcoin metaprocol is a layer protocol in layers in the upper part of the base protocol, Bitcoin, which interprets the data and actions of the underlying protocol through the additional rules lens that do not exist in that base protocol.
A historical example of this would be the counterpart protocol (XCP). Using op_return, an operation code in the bitcoin script that simply pushes arbitrary data to the battery creating an indisputable exit that can ignore the UTXO set, XCP embeds its own metaprotocol messages.
These messages facilitate the issuance of new tokens, the transfer of tokens defining how much it is sent and where, as well as other messages that allow exchanges of trust in the chain between XCP itself and any other tokens issued using the protocol.
The Bitcoin protocol itself does not understand or cares about any of these messages. They are interpreted by additional software executed on Bitcoin. It is completely possible for anyone who uses Bitcoin to create totally invalid XCP messages and confirm them in the chain, but the XCP software will not recognize it as valid. The person who elaborates these invalid messages is simply wasting their own money by creating useless transactions.
Absolutely nothing can prevent people from interpreting valid data in Bitcoin through the additional rules lens external to the Bitcoin protocol in this way.
Ordinals work very similarly. Users assign a unique “serial number” to each Satoshi that is extracted, and have created their own accounting system to interpret the order of entry and exit in a transaction to follow where “individual satoshis” are sent in the course of the transaction.
The Bitcoin protocol itself completely ignores this external protocol, and nothing can be done to prevent users from interpreting valid Bitcoin transactions in this way. Anyone can interpret the data published in the block chain as you want, applying any additional restriction that you choose that they do not conflict with the rules of the Bitcoin Base Protocol.
Nothing prevents people from preparing invalid or malicious metaprotocol messages, and confirming those in blockchain, but users who execute metaprotocol customers will simply ignore them as invalid. This is the key difference between the Bitcoin protocol itself and metaprocol. Bitcoin’s consensus rules prevent the non -valid protocol messages from being included in the block chain, non -metaprocol (or rather cannot).
Data Incrustation
The difference between the two previous metaprocols is that one requires incorporating additional data in the chain to work (XCP), and the other not (ordinal). Therefore, it is possible that it supposes that it can simply avoid protocols that need to embed additional data simply preventing the data from being embedded first.
While it is true that the specific mechanisms of data embedding could be prevented from the soft to that particular mechanism outside the protocol, that is, the transactions that make use of that invalid mechanism, cannot prevent the data from being embedded in general.
Take, for example, the “enrollment.” This is simply a specific method to ensure that the data integrated into an expense witness is never really executed. This is done using op_false, which pushes a 0 (or false value that will fail verification) in the pile before the op_pushes that really embed the data. This makes the script interpreter simply jump to verify the data after op_false. The key functionality required is to put a 0 in the pile.
If the use of this specific script format invalidates by consensus, there are other ways to place a 0 in the battery or ensure that the script scripts the verification and execution of subsequent fragments of scripts. Just trying to stop this specific class of data embedding, and with that I mean the use of op_false in general, it becomes a cat game and mouse with many other options that users can resort.
Disable each of them requires the deployment of a fork soft, a massive The coordination effort throughout the ecosystem, and just after happening, users can trivially modify their software to use another method. Metaprocol can adapt much faster than Bitcoin. Of course, this is only deal with this kind of ways to embed data.
We entertain the hypothetical reality where all the mechanisms used by op_false have been restricted (ignoring both the complication to identify them all and coordinate the fork, as well as the potential to involuntarily restrict other cases of use of bitcoin), users can simply create false public keys. There is nothing in the bitcoin protocol that verifies that a public key is a valid public key, it is simply a random arbitrary chain included in the blocking script of an output.
Now imagine a world where Bitcoin did Include a mechanism that forced the validation of a public key before allowing money to be sent. That would solve that problem, right?
Mistaken.
Can embed the data indirectly Using private key. But private keys never put themselves in the chain, right? No, they don’t, but a signature of sign is. A Nance is a random value used in the construction of a cryptographic firm. This is required to protect your private key, because without using a cryptographic firm is insecure and can filter your private key to an attacker. Even using a poorly selected or weak Nance can allow that to happen.
People can intentionally use a weak child, and in reality Use arbitrary data itself as a private key. The only way in which this can be prevented is a centralized authority that the white list of private keys, that is, completely centralize the ability to use bitcoin behind a closed authority.
These examples are not even complete, there are many other methods in which it occurs to me to embed arbitrary data in the block chain, and I am sure I can’t.
Trying towackamole with all of them simply wasted the time and resources of the entire ecosystem trying to coordinate softforks to address each of them, a massively complex and expensive effort, and at the end of the day There are still methods that are not possible to prevent the central protocol of Bitcoins from completely breaking..
Why the user will continue doing this
I am sure that many people who read this are thinking: “We just have to do this several times and people will stop trying, they will not go through all the additional effort.” That attitude is completely disconnected from reality for multiple reasons.
I want you to think about the two reasons why people would participate in this type of behavior in the first place. Or it is providing real utilitarian benefits for them, that is, to serve a real purpose in their lives that provides value not purely rooted in speculation, or is pure speculation.
Let’s look at the first case. Some significant utility value is provided, which cannot be provided in any other way, or at least not to the same extent, nor the same security guarantees, etc. Why would these users not continue to adapt their protocol to enrut any restriction to avoid their case of use at the consensus level?
This hypothetical protocol is something real for these people, something that gives them a necessary or valuable functionality. They all have an incentive to adapt the protocol to work around new restrictions.
Now let’s see the second case, it is purely a case of speculative use, that is, NFT or some form of collectible or token. These types of things are fed by a pure speculative mania, large amounts of money are thrown in a game of musical chairs with everyone playing to get out of profits because the mania dissipates and collapses over itself.
These things are always cyclical, they never remain persistently, and come and go. What makes you think that restricting a way to create such assets will discourage people to make new? I will remind you at this point that the “property transfer” with these things in Bitcoin occurs through the order. This particular metaprocol is literally impossible to block or prevent any means.
Nothing about restricting specific mechanisms to embed data in the chain avoids the transfer or resale of the assets created previously using that mechanism, so nothing can be done to prevent those assets that already existed being negotiated.
People who participate in these activities are degenerated, blindly pursue any opportunity they can find to get fast money. Do you think that preventing new assets of a certain type will stop them? Force them to use new mechanisms probably actively boost demand For these new types of assets. It will not be a disincentive, it will be a proactive incentive.
The new mechanism will be desirable for them due to the controversy value. This is simply a loser game, which as I demonstrated in the previous section ends with the use of mechanisms that are literally not possible to prevent.
The Rational Action Course
It is impossible to stop the embedding of arbitrary data in general in Bitcoin. It is possible to stop Some specific methods to embed data, but not the practice in general. So why are we fighting these things?
All we can do at the end of the day is to continue pushing these cases of use to more inefficient methods that cause a great negative impact on the network as a whole. Leaving the media currently compatible, which in the great scheme of things are very efficient in terms of using network resources, is the rational movement of doing.
Trying to expel the practice of embeding data in Bitcoin is impossible, but treating is, ultimately, self -destructive. Takes us along a path that finally limits and limits Bitcoin use as moneyAnd in the end he finally fails.
Simply cut your nose to take off your face.
