Bitcoin Metaprotocols Cannot Be Stopped

Bitcoin is a database. 

The technology is here to stay. The ledger of money is a simple record. Money is nothing more than a means of distributing this. “database” The real world. The simple act issuing the item to you will be enough to confirm it. It is no longer necessary to check against a central ledger in order to verify something. The simple act of handing you the item will be enough. “entries” This ledger is passed from person to person, disconnected from any central database. Bitcoin is just a digital version of the physical cash. It tries to duplicate its most valuable property: that you don’t need to ask permission for spending your money. 

Imagine trying to prevent people from defacing dollars. How many people have you stamped? “Buy Bitcoin” How do you get your fiat currency onto a surface? In the United States, defacing banknotes is a federal offense. It’s a federal crime that can land you in prison for 6 months. Is anyone stopping?

You seriously believe that this could ever be implemented anywhere? Are you familiar with Where’s George? They would use a stamp to add a web address on the dollar bill so they could be tracked geographically. 

The artists use collages and murals to create a unique look on the cash notes. It is impossible to stop.. 

Why do some people believe that it is possible because a database is digital only? 

Bitcoin’s very nature requires that users be able to make transactions with arbitrary data. It is impossible to know in advance how much you’ll send (the “satoshi” field) or where (the “script”), nor at what blockheight (the “nLocktime” field of a transaction and the field nSequence in an input transaction). 

Bitcoin as a whole cannot function without these random pieces of data. 

Metaprotocols

The Bitcoin Metaprotocol (Bitcoin) is an additional protocol that sits on top of Bitcoin’s base protocol. It interprets data and actions from the protocol using rules not present in the Bitcoin base protocol. 

An example from history would be that of the Counterparty (XCP) protocol. XCP’s metaprotocol is embedded using OP_RETURN. 

These messages enable the issuance of new coins, token transfers by defining the quantity and the location, and other messages which allow on-chain, trustless, exchanges of XCP and other tokens that are issued with the protocol. 

Bitcoin’s protocol doesn’t care or understand about any of the messages. These messages are translated by software that runs on top of Bitcoin. Anyone can use Bitcoin and create a completely invalid XCP message. It will be confirmed in the blockchain, but XCP won’t recognize it. These invalid messages are a waste of money for the person who creates them. 

There is absolutely nothing that can stop someone from looking at valid Bitcoin data with the additional rules outside the Bitcoin Protocol. 

Ordinals They all work in the same way. Users assign a unique ‘serial number’ to every single satoshi that is mined, and have created their own accounting system to interpret the input and output ordering in a transaction to follow where “individual satoshis” Transactions involve the sending of messages. 

Bitcoin is unaware of the external protocol and there’s nothing that can be done about it. Users are free to interpret valid Bitcoin transactions however they want. Any user can use the information published in the blockchain to interpret it however they wish, and apply any additional restrictions they desire that are not at odds with the Bitcoin protocol. 

Users running clients for metaprotocols will just ignore these messages as they are not valid. Metaprotocols and the Bitcoin protocol are very different. Bitcoin consensus rules prohibit protocol invalid messages ever being placed on the blockchain. Metaprotocols do not (or rather cannot). 

Data Embedding

One metaprotocol requires extra data to be embedded on the chain in order for it to work (XCP), while the other one does not. It is possible that you think you can prevent protocol that embed extra data simply by not allowing it to be embedded. 

It is true that certain mechanisms for data embedding can be stopped by softforking the mechanism from the protocol. You can invalidate transactions using that particular mechanism, but you cannot stop data embedding in general. 

Consider the following: “Inscription envelope.” The method is to ensure that any data embedded within a witness spending is not executed. This can be done using OP_FALSE which will push a 0 or False Value that fails verification onto the stack prior to the OP_PUSHes. The interpreter of the script will simply ignore the verification after the OP_FALSE. This is the key function required. It involves putting a zero on the stack. 

You can also use other methods to place a 0 in the stack if you decide to invalidate the specific format of the script. Or, to make sure that the interpreter of the script scripts verification and execution for subsequent script chunks. It’s a cat-and-mouse game to try to prevent this particular class of data embedded, by which I mean the general use of OP_FALSE.

Each of these must be disabled using a small fork. Massive Discounts on All Products After a successful implementation, users may easily modify their software in order to switch over to another system. Metaprotocols adapt quicker than Bitcoin. This is not the case. solely This is a single class of embedding methods. 

Users can create fake public key if we accept the possibility that all mechanisms which use OP_FALSE are restricted. (Ignoring the complexity of identifying them all and coordinating forks, along with the risk of unintentionally limiting other uses of Bitcoin). Bitcoin’s protocol doesn’t verify whether a key public is a real key public. Instead, the key public is simply an arbitrary random string that is included as part of a script to lock an output. 

Imagine a world without Bitcoin The following are some of the ways to improve your own ability. Include a mechanism which forces the validation of public keys before money can be sent. This would fix the problem, right?

Wrong. 

Indirect embedding is possible. using the private key. But you don’t actually ever put private keys on the chain right? They don’t. But a nonce for a cryptographic signature is. Nonces are random values used to construct cryptographic signatures. A cryptographic signature would be insecure without a nonce, which could expose your private information to an attacker. It can be done even with a nonce that is weak or badly chosen. 

It is possible to use weak nonces intentionally. Use the data as it is to create a key. Only a whitelist of private keys maintained by a centralized authority can prevent this. The ability to use Bitcoin should be completely centralized behind an authority. 

The examples I have given are by no means exhaustive. I can imagine many more ways of embedding arbitrary information in the Blockchain, but I doubt I will be able to. 

To try to coordinate the softforks in order to deal with each one is to waste the resources and time of the whole ecosystem. Massive At the end of it all, the effort is expensive and complex. Bitcoin’s core protocol cannot be broken without preventing some of the methods.. 

What Makes Users Continue to Do It?

There are many people who will be thinking about this. “we just have to do this a few times and people will stop trying, they won’t go through all the extra effort.” The attitude of the person is totally disconnected with reality. 

Think about two possible reasons why people engage in such behavior. It is either providing them with real utility benefits, or it’s pure speculation. Serving a true purpose to them that does not only stem from speculation is either pure speculation. 

First, let’s examine the case. The utility provided is not available in another way or, at least, it cannot be offered to the same degree or with the same level of security. Why wouldn’t these users keep adapting to the restrictions put in place by consensus to stop their use cases?

These people see this hypothetical protocol as a reality, something that provides them with a useful or necessary functionality. The protocol is a real thing to them, and it provides a useful or necessary function.

Let’s now look at the case of the second use, which is strictly speculative, i.e. These NFTs are a form of token or collectible. The mania for these types of items is pure speculation. Massive amounts of cash are spent in an endless game of musical chair, with all players trying to make the most profit. 

The things that are mentioned above come and go, they’re cyclical in nature, and don’t last. You think that by restricting the creation of such assets, people will be discouraged from creating more? Let me remind you that this is the “transfer of ownership” These things happen on Bitcoin through Ordinals. This metaprotocol can’t be blocked or prevented by anyone. 

The restriction of specific mechanisms for embedding data onto the chain does not prevent assets already created by using those mechanisms from being transferred or sold. Therefore, nothing can be achieved to stop these assets. 

They are degenerates who blindly follow any quick-buck opportunity. Think that preventing people from creating new assets will deter them? It is likely that forcing them to utilize new mechanisms would stop them. actively drive demand For those new assets. This will not be an incentive, but a proactive one. 

They will be attracted to the new mechanism because it is controversial. It is a loser’s game that, as I showed in the previous section, ends up with mechanisms which are impossible to stop. 

Rational Action

The embedding of random data is possible in Bitcoin. You can stop Some specific methods But not embedding in data as a whole. Why do we fight these things then?

The only thing we can do is to keep pushing this use case into inefficient methods which have a huge negative impact upon the network. It is rational to leave the existing methods that are, in the end, very efficient when it comes to network resource usage. 

It is impossible to eliminate the embedding of data into Bitcoin, and it is also self-destructive. This leads to a road that is ultimately limiting and constraining. Bitcoins as a form of moneyIt still fails in the end. 

This is a simple way to slander your face by removing your nose.