Bitcoin Core's built-in transaction relay splits the community: Are inscriptions spam transactions?

Bitcoin Core's announcement of a built-in transaction relay has sparked division within the community, particularly over whether inscriptions (data stored in Bitcoin blocks) should be classified as spam transactions.
The far-right faction, led by figures like Luke, views inscriptions as junk transactions that should be filtered out, arguing Bitcoin shouldn't function as a storage chain.
The moderate right (Bitcoin Core group) opposes censorship, advocating that only pure DoS attacks should be filtered, and proposes removing OP-Return size limits to legitimize inscriptions.
The new transaction relay aims to improve network efficiency by preventing DoS attacks and reducing block propagation delays, though it’s voluntary for users.
Core’s move may reduce the influence of third-party relays with stricter filtering rules, effectively shifting the balance toward milder spam filtering.
The debate reflects broader tensions: inscriptions provide miner revenue and network security but challenge Bitcoin’s original design. Core insists users retain freedom to choose software and policies.
The author supports Core’s approach, arguing inscriptions are valid transactions if fees are paid, and opposing censorship aligns with Bitcoin’s foundational principles.

The Core group released the latest statement, and the Bitcoin core development circle was in an uproar. I see that there are not many discussions in Chinese, so let me analyze the background of the story and my personal strong opinion.

First, yesterday Bitcoin Core released a statement called “Bitcoin Core Development and Transaction Relay Policy,” which was denounced by opponents as infamous as the “New York Agreement.”

So what does this announcement say? Bitcoin Core is going to launch its own built-in transaction relay.

I think this transaction relay is paving the way for the previous removal of the OP-Return zone restrictions.

Why did this thing spark so much discussion? Because there is another story background, which I have talked about before - two years ago, inscriptions began to be popular, but these inscriptions and runes were stored in the OP-Return area of the Bitcoin block in a form similar to a "bug", thus breaking the Bitcoin block limit in disguise.

As a result, Bitcoin is now divided between the right and the far right.

The inscriptions aroused the disgust of the extreme right, so at the call of Luke and others, Knots, the second-ranked Bitcoin client, launched a spam filter, which directly regarded these inscription transactions as spam transactions and refused to package them. If you still remember, this even caused Ordi to plummet.

But the ordinary right-wing, that is, the Bitcoin Core group, believes that since inscriptions can already be put on the chain by bugging, it is better to correct their names rather than let them continue to be buggy. So in recent months, the Core group has proposed a new PR, wanting to change OP-Return from 80KB to unlimited, which is equivalent to directly removing the restrictions on inscriptions and allowing them to be put on the chain openly.

Although the inscriptions are basically given, I think these are more or less some extra subsidies for miners. After all, earning more can make the Bitcoin network more secure.

After talking about the background, let's get back to what exactly is this "transaction relay". In theory, Bitcoin is a P2P network, which means that all miners are connected to each other in a single line. However, this thing is theoretically the safest way, because the current network environment is quite safe, and there is no need to be so absolute.

Therefore, "transaction relay" came into being. You can send the transaction to the relay first (note that it is not mandatory, it is voluntary). This has two major advantages:

1. It helps prevent DoS attacks. Those random 0-fee transactions will not blow up the miners’ peer-to-peer servers.

2. Speeding up the propagation of transaction blocks and reducing latency will help prevent large miners from gaining unfair advantages.

It’s actually a very good thing.

In the past, transaction relayers also had different strategies, some strictly filtered out spam transactions, while others were completely free.

PS: I don’t think this is transaction censorship, it’s more about filtering junk transactions, and users can choose not to use these features. In fact, both the right wing (Core group) and the extreme right wing (Luke and others) have the desire to filter junk transactions, but the core contradiction is that everyone has completely different definitions of junk transactions.

The extreme right believes that inscriptions are junk transactions that should be eliminated, and Bitcoin should not become a storage chain.

The right wing believes that we should not censor (inscriptions) and restrict certain transactions from being put on the chain. Filters should only filter out those pure DoS attacks.

PS: Although I used the term "extreme right" here, it does not mean that "extreme right" is a derogatory term. The former is radical spam filtering, while the latter is moderate spam filtering. In the past, these transaction relays were maintained by volunteers for love, especially the "radical spam filtering rules", because the volunteers had a strong belief - that is, they hated inscriptions.

However, once the Core team personally adds [mild spam filtering rules] to the Bitcoin client, it may mean that the market share of those [aggressive spam filtering rules] in the past will be greatly reduced.

If you are a little confused after reading this, let me make an analogy - it feels like the official suddenly announced the CP and attacked the fans' CP pairing, which means the official forced the fans to death.

Of course, even though Core currently has a market share of over 90%, Core does not consider themselves to be the "official" party.

Because Bitcoin is a network defined by its users, users have ultimate freedom to choose what software to use and implement whatever policies they wish. Bitcoin Core contributors have no power to enforce these rules, and they even avoid automatic software updates to avoid suspicion.

Personally, I actually support updates like the Core group.

Again, if your fence is only 10 cm high and other people can come and go freely, you might as well tear it down to save yourself the trouble.

Although I personally don't care about inscriptions, I don't think they are junk deals. As long as you pay normally, they are a good deal.

Inscriptions are also charged according to volume, so there is no need to struggle with money. It also brings extra income to miners, which helps keep Bitcoin’s security strong after N halvings.

Moreover, I firmly oppose transaction censorship. The semi-official Bitcoin Core takes the lead in discriminating against transactions that pay normal handling fees, because transaction discrimination will gradually turn into transaction censorship.

One of Bitcoin’s most proud attributes is its security and resistance to transaction censorship. By adopting a mild spam filtering rule, it can benefit both of these attributes.

Opponents criticized that this was a compromise by the Core group to the miners (because of the miners' income) and abandoning its users. I disagree with this view - Inscription users are also Bitcoin users.

Times have progressed, and the hardware environment is no longer the same as in 2008. If the Bitcoin blockchain in 2025 stores some text and pictures, it will not be difficult for the nodes, and Satoshi Nakamoto himself has engraved the news of that year in the Legendary Blockchain.

Bitcoin will never become a storage chain, but without changing the underlying layer, what's the harm in storing some data as a part-time job? Real physical gold can be used to carve and leave records, and our electronic gold should also acquiesce to this.

So I strongly support the Core group's proposal.