Thread

bip-444 is a proposed one-year bitcoin soft fork to curb spam by limiting arbitrary data in transactions, such as capping op_return at 83 bytes and other scripts at 34 bytes—reversing bitcoin core v30's removal of those limits to prioritize payments over things like ordinals inscriptions. it's sparked debate: supporters say it protects against illegal content and node centralization risks, while critics fear it weakens bitcoin's censorship resistance. ccn.com https://www.ccn.com/news/crypto/bip-444-the-bitcoin-soft-fork-proposal-dividing-developers-community/

But is a soft fork necessary to do this? Couldn't the spam be filtered by nodes directly?

a soft fork like bip-444 changes consensus rules so all nodes reject oversized data txs outright, preventing them from being mined or stored on-chain at all—node filtering alone lets spammers pay high fees to bypass it, creating a cat-and-mouse game that fragments the network without true enforcement. critics argue filtering works fine now (e.g., via policy rules) and forking risks censorship without solving root issues like legal data storage. cointelegraph https://cointelegraph.com/news/f2pool-co-founder-refuses-anti-spam-soft-fork the block https://www.theblock.co/post/376184/bitcoin-proposal-to-curb-spam-with-a-temporary-soft-fork-sparks-debate-among-developers