Giovanni Russo Renowned cryptographer and Blockstream CEO Adam Back has openly recognized the futility of obstructing inscriptions, or media integrated directly onto the Bitcoin blockchain. In his recent remarks, he emphasized that any attempts to hinder this practice would only lead users to find more problematic alternatives. As a solution, Back has put forward the idea of introducing a new data segment within Bitcoin blocks, specifically allocated for inscriptions.
Adam Back Suggests Expanding Block Size to Facilitate Inscriptions
In his latest comments, Adam Back, the CEO of Blockstream, acknowledged the ineffectiveness of opposing Ordinal inscriptions, which are various forms of media, including images, embedded on the Bitcoin blockchain. Back, in a statement released in X, asserted the inevitability of JPEGs on Bitcoin, cautioning that efforts to eliminate them would only exacerbate the issue.
Back expressed his views as follows:
Continual complaints will only intensify their actions. Any attempts to halt them will push them towards more detrimental methods. The increased fees are actually fostering layer2 adoption and driving innovation. So, it’s better to focus on development and innovation.
Back has consistently criticized the Ordinals protocol since its inception, labeling it as “inefficient” and “foolish.” He has urged developers to consider alternative approaches like IPFS for similar functionalities.
The introduction of Ordinal inscriptions and stamps, another protocol for embedding media on Bitcoin, has recently pushed transaction fees above $40. To address this congestion, Back suggests allocating specific space within each block for hosting these and other Bitcoin-related data, through what he terms a “segwit annex.” He elaborates:
Inscription enthusiasts seek the unique scarcity offered by Bitcoin mining and block space limitations, and they prefer to pay less rather than more. Therefore, a segwit annex could provide an additional 4MW space, funded by miners, offering greater discounts than taproot inscriptions.
Back’s proposal involves an increase in the Bitcoin block size, which he clarifies would not necessitate consensus changes and could also be utilized for storing Bitcoin wallet data.
Several community members have noted that Back’s proposal bears resemblance to Ethereum’s EIP-4844, also known as Proto-Danksharding. This Ethereum proposal introduces temporary data blobs to the blockchain, creating a separate fee market for them.
What are your thoughts on Adam Back’s proposal for a “segwit annex” to expand block size for Ordinal inscriptions? Share your opinions in the comments section below.
Table Of Contents
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Bitcoin Inscriptions
What is Adam Back’s proposal regarding Bitcoin inscriptions?
Adam Back suggests increasing Bitcoin’s block size to include a new data segment, a “segwit annex,” specifically for hosting inscriptions like JPEG images directly on the blockchain. This proposal aims to address issues of inefficiency and high transaction fees associated with current Ordinal inscriptions.
Why does Adam Back oppose attempts to stop Bitcoin JPEGs?
Back believes that any efforts to restrict JPEGs or other media inscribed on the Bitcoin blockchain are futile. He argues that such attempts will only lead users to find more problematic ways to embed media, thereby worsening the situation.
How does the proposed “segwit annex” aim to improve Bitcoin?
The proposed segwit annex by Adam Back aims to provide additional space of 4MW within each Bitcoin block, dedicated to hosting inscriptions and other Bitcoin-centric data. This expansion is intended to reduce congestion and transaction fees, and it would not require changes to Bitcoin’s consensus mechanism.
Has Adam Back offered alternatives to the Ordinals protocol?
Yes, Adam Back has criticized the Ordinals protocol as inefficient and foolish, suggesting that developers should consider other solutions like the InterPlanetary File System (IPFS) to achieve similar objectives without overburdening the Bitcoin blockchain.
How do the community views Adam Back’s block size increase proposal?
The community has mixed reactions to Adam Back’s proposal. Some see it as a practical solution to the congestion and high fees caused by Ordinal inscriptions, while others compare it to Ethereum’s EIP-4844, noting similarities in the approach to handling blockchain data.
More about Bitcoin Inscriptions
- Adam Back Discusses Bitcoin Inscriptions
- Blockstream CEO’s Proposal for Blockchain Efficiency
- Segwit Annex: A Solution to Bitcoin Congestion?
- Ordinal Inscriptions and Bitcoin: The Debate
- Comparing Bitcoin’s Proposed Segwit Annex to Ethereum’s EIP-4844
4 comments
Love the forward-thinking approach! It’s about time we adapt and innovate within the Bitcoin framework. Kudos to Back for leading the charge.
not sure this is a good idea, increasing block size might lead to other issues, remember what happend with Bitcoin Cash?
adam’s proposal sounds a lot like Ethereum’s EIP-4844…isn’t that ironic given all the rivalry between btc and eth communities??
This seems like a complicated solution to a problem that shouldn’t even exist. Why are we cluttering the blockchain with JPEGs in the first place?