BIP-110 Protocol: The Necessary Path for Bitcoin to Reach One Million Dollars? | Bee Network

BIP-110 Protocol: The Necessary Path for Bitcoin to Reach One Million Dollars? | Bee Network Login 인기 뉴스 밈 런치패드 AI 에이전트 DeSci 탑체인 익스플로러 뉴비의 경우 100x 코인 꿀벌 게임 필수 웹사이트 필수 앱 암호화폐 유명인 드핀 루키 에센셜 함정 탐지기 기본 도구 고급 웹사이트 교환 NFT 도구 안녕, 로그아웃 웹3 유니버스 계략 DApp 꿀벌 하이브 성장하는 플랫폼 기원 후 찾다 영어 코인 충전 로그인 다운로드 웹3 유니 계략 DApp 꿀벌 하이브 기원 후 집•분석•BIP-110 Protocol: The Necessary Path for Bitcoin to Reach One Million Dollars? BIP-110 Protocol: The Necessary Path for Bitcoin to Reach One Million Dollars?분석3주 전发布와이엇 7,924 19 Original Compilation: AididiaoJP, Foresight News

Permissionless execution of Bitcoin’s monetary policy and a distributed network of nodes are the sole sources of credibility that have propelled Bitcoin from zero to $125,000.

To reach the $1 million target, credibility of the same caliber is required, but its scale must be sufficient to meet the needs of sovereign wealth funds and central banks holding assets for decades.

Understand this very clearly: the network and the nodes are under systemic attack, and Bitcoin Core has left the door open for it. But for the first time since the attack began, there is a real proposal on the table that will stop it all.

This article explains this attack, the evidence behind the fix, and why the path to $1 million must go directly through it.

What Gives Bitcoin Value Bitcoin’s entire value proposition is based on a monetary guarantee.

There will only ever be 21 million Bitcoin, a limit enforced by a distributed network of nodes that independently verifies every transaction. This guarantee holds because ordinary people around the world can easily run the node software that enforces it.

This is precisely what distinguishes Bitcoin from all other centralized “암호화폐” projects. Ethereum has a foundation; Solana has a handful of validators running enterprise hardware; XRP has Ripple Labs. Each of these projects has a centralized chokepoint that could be pressured, subpoenaed, sanctioned, or simply persuaded to change the rules. Bitcoin does not, because anyone with a regular computer and an internet connection can run a fully validating node, interacting with the monetary protocol permissionlessly, without intermediaries, and without trusting anyone.

Gold requires trust in an assayer, bonds require trust in a government, stocks require trust in an auditor. Bitcoin requires only trust in mathematics and the nodes that run it.

Every node operator validating the chain is a vote on monetary policy. The more nodes, the more decentralized the validation, and the more credible this guarantee appears to the capital that can push the asset into seven-figure territory.

Therefore, when something threatens the accessibility of running a node, it threatens Bitcoin’s value and very existence.

The Vulnerability Where It All Began Bitcoin Core has had spam filtering as a standard feature from day one. Since 2013, node operators have been able to set limits on the size of extra data embedded in transactions via a configuration option called -datacarriersize, a deliberate design decision. The developers building and maintaining the protocol understood that without size limits on non-monetary data, the blockchain would inevitably be abused as a cheap data storage system, at the cost of every node operator on the network.

This system worked for a decade. Then, in early 2023, Casey Rodarmor launched the Ordinals protocol, and the dam broke.

Ordinals exploited a vulnerability in Bitcoin Core’s spam filter. The existing data carrier limits were never extended to cover Taproot transactions introduced in the November 2021 upgrade. This meant that by disguising arbitrary data as program code within Tapscript witness space, using an OP_FALSE OP_IF wrapper that would never actually execute, anyone could bypass the data size limits meant to prevent such abuse. Images, text files, BRC-20 token mints, and all other forms of non-monetary data could now be permanently embedded into the Bitcoin blockchain at a cost far below normal data transactions, thanks to the SegWit witness discount subsidy designed to reduce signature verification costs.

@LukeDashjr identified this as a bug from the start. In December 2023, he formally registered the vulnerability in the NIST National Vulnerability Database as CVE-2023-50428, receiving a medium severity score of 5.3. The official description is precise: “In Bitcoin Core 26.0 and before, and Bitcoin Knots 25.1.knots20231115 and before, data carrier size limits can be bypassed by disguising data as code (e.g., with OP_FALSE OP_IF), as exploited in 2022 and 2023 by inscriptions.”

Luke is clear on what this means. “Spam filtering has been a standard part of Bitcoin Core since day one,” he explains. Failing to extend these filters to Taproot transactions was a bug, and inscriptions are exploiting this bug to attack the network. “The damage it does to Bitcoin and Bitcoin users, including future users, is huge and irreversible,” he wrote. “No one ever allowed Ordinals. It was an attack on Bitcoin from the start.”

The alternative node implementation Bitcoin Knots, maintained by Dashjr, patched CVE-2023-50428 in its 25.1 release in late 2023. The Ocean mining pool immediately deployed the fix, announcing its blocks would now contain “more real transactions” and characterizing Ordinals inscriptions as a denial-of-service attack on the network.

Bitcoin Core never patched it.

A formally registered NIST vulnerability, scored, exploited in millions of transactions, adding gigabytes of permanent bloat to every full node on the network, and the primary node software used by the vast majority of the Bitcoin network refuses to fix it. A patch exists, is tested, and is in production use on Knots. Core chose not to apply it and has instead moved further in the opposite direction.

Core 30: A Tax on Every Node While BIP-110 proposed protecting nodes from data bloat, Bitcoin Core version 30 did the opposite. Instead of patching CVE-2023-50428, Core 30 completely removed the long-standing OP_RETURN size limit, opening the door to unlimited arbitrary data in OP_RETURN outputs.

The rationale provided by Core developers was that the existing 80-byte limit was being circumvented anyway, so there was no point in maintaining it. This is like a city council stopping speed limit enforcement because people were speeding, and it directly contradicts the decade-long precedent noted by Dashjr.

Bitcoin Core has maintained data carrier size limits since 2013 because developers understood protecting block space from non-monetary abuse was crucial to keeping nodes accessible. Core 30 abandoned this principle.

The practical effect is a tax on every node runner. Unlimited OP_RETURN data means nodes must download, verify, and store an ever-growing amount of data. And for what? The beneficiaries of this change are a handful of developers building non-monetary applications on Bitcoin who found the existing limits inconvenient.

Jameson Lopp argued for this change on the grounds of “extreme edge cases” unrelated to Bitcoin’s function as money, yet relevant to his VS startup Citrea building “on Bitcoin.”

Ordinary people hate this.

In 2013, Core introduced data carrier limits to protect nodes from data spam. For a decade, these limits worked. In 2023, a bug allowed inscriptions to bypass these limits via Taproot, and Core refused to patch it.

In 2025, Core removed the limits entirely. Each step makes nodes heavier and more expensive to run, each step moves further from the principle that “Bitcoin block space is for monetary transactions.”

This is the fundamental conflict in Bitcoin development today. One faction wants to keep the network as a lean, accessible monetary protocol that anyone can verify with a Raspberry Pi.

The other faction wants to expand the protocol’s capabilities to accommodate any creative use case developers can think of, and they are willing to make nodes heavier and more expensive to achieve it.

The first group is moving towards a $1 million Bitcoin. The second group is moving towards a “better version of Ethereum.”

The Data: What BIP-110 Actually Does @CunyRenaud just released a corrected simulation of BIP-110, covering 10 days of mainnet data, from block height 929,592 to 931,032.

The results are unambiguous.

Of the 4.7 million transactions in the sample period:

1,957,896 were filtered out by BIP-110 (41.5% of all transactions).

747.85 MB of block space was reclaimed (36%).

Zero legitimate financial transactions were blocked.

Out of nearly five million transactions, not a single monetary transfer was caught by the filter. Every payment, every exchange withdrawal, every Lightning channel open, every CoinJoin, every multisig spend went through.

A breakdown of the results reveals an important fact most in this debate have missed. The community has been treating Ordinals inscriptions and OP_RETURN spam as two separate problems. They are not.

Of the inscription transactions caught by BIP-110, 94.6% were hybrid transactions, carrying both a Tapscript OP_IF inscription wrapper and an OP_RETURN output containing Rune metadata. When BIP-110 filtered out the inscription, the associated OP_RETURN data disappeared with it.

The narrative of “two spam problems” collapses in the face of the data. Bitcoin has one spam problem, but with two manifestations, and BIP-110 solves both.

The Rule That Carries the Weight BIP-110 contains multiple rules, but Rule 7 is the most critical. It prohibits the use of the OP_IF and OP_NOTIF opcodes in Tapscript execution. This targets the exact mechanism described in CVE-2023-50428, the OP_FALSE OP_IF wrapper that Ordinals inscriptions use to embed arbitrary data in witness space.

Rule 7 alone caught 1,954,477 transactions in the simulation, 99.8% of all filtered transactions. In effect, it is the patch Core refused to release, now formalized as a consensus rule with a one-year activation window.

An obvious question is whether this breaks any real functionality. The simulation specifically searched for legitimate Tapscript contracts using OP_IF, including conditional branches, timelocks, threshold signatures, and hash timelock contracts.

The answer, out of 4.7 million transactions, was zero. These patterns do not exist in mainnet Tapscript today. The Lightning Network still runs on SegWit v0, DLCs use adapter signatures, and vault implementations are still experimental.

The theoretical concern that Rule 7 might hinder future smart contracts is worth acknowledging. It might. But BIP-110’s activation period is one year, not forever. The inscription flood is happening now, and the damage to the UTXO set accumulates daily.

A one-year intervention that eliminates 41.5% of transaction spam while blocking zero financial activity is a trade-off that favors action.

Bitcoin is Money Some will oppose BIP-110 on the grounds that “all fee-paying transactions are legitimate.” Inscription users pay the market rate, miners voluntarily include their transactions, by what authority can they be filtered out?

The answer lies in understanding what Bitcoin actually protects and why.

Bitcoin’s censorship resistance is designed to guarantee monetary transactions. Proof-of-work, difficulty adjustment, the block reward schedule, and the entire security model were designed to protect a peer-to-peer electronic cash system.

That design, that singular purpose, is what justifies the massive energy expenditure required to protect the network.

Monetary transactions on Bitcoin are uncensorable. This is precisely the property that makes Bitcoin valuable, and it’s a property BIP-110 fully preserves. If you are sending or receiving Bitcoin as money, BIP-110 does not affect you. The simulation empirically proves this. 2.5 million financial transactions went through, none were touched.

The existence of non-monetary transactions is at the network’s tolerance. No one is banning them by decree, no one is arresting inscription users. The argument is simply that storing NFT data and token minting instructions in witness space does not enjoy the same protocol-level protection as transferring value between people. When non-monetary uses begin to threaten the infrastructure that makes monetary use possible, the network is fully within its rights to prioritize its core function.

This is not censorship. Censorship is when a government stops your payment because it dislikes your politics. Filtering out data storage operations that exploit a bug that should have been patched years ago is network maintenance. This distinction matters, and anyone conflating the two is either confused or arguing in bad faith.

When critics argue that miners would never voluntarily stop including inscription transactions, Dashjr articulates this clearly: “Bitcoin’s operating assumption is that most miners are honest, not malicious.” The security model assumes miners will act in the network’s long-term interest, not damage the infrastructure that makes fees valuable to maximize short-term fee revenue.

The Path to $1 Million Imagine explaining Bitcoin to a sovereign wealth fund manager in 2028. You are arguing this asset deserves a permanent allocation alongside gold and government bonds.

The argument rests on three pillars: a fixed supply, censorship-resistant transactions, and decentralized validation. If any one pillar is weakened, the argument weakens. If the supply schedule can be changed, Bitcoin is just another, better-marketed fiat. If transactions can be censored, Bitcoin is just a slow database.

If validation centralizes to a few data centers because running a node becomes too expensive, then Bitcoin’s monetary guarantee becomes a gentleman’s agreement enforced by entities with identifiable interests and political pressure points.

Inscription-driven UTXO bloat directly attacks the third pillar. It makes nodes more expensive, validation more centralized, and damages the decentralization that makes the monetary guarantee credible. And it does all this to provide a service unrelated to money that can be done more efficiently on systems built for that specific purpose.

Arbitrary data storage is a solved problem; Bitcoin does not need to be Filecoin.

Meanwhile, Core’s trajectory from refusing to patch CVE-2023-50428 to actively removing OP_RETURN limits in version 30 shows the current development leadership is willing to let nodes become bloated to serve non-monetary use cases. BIP-110 resists this trajectory. It signals that the network’s priority is money, the node network exists to validate money, and the protocol should be optimized for money.

BIP-110 eliminates the inscription attack vector for one year while leaving every single financial transaction on the network completely unaffected. It eliminates 41.5% of spam transactions and reclaims 36% of block space. Out of 4.7 million transactions tested, it produced zero false positives. And it preserves the option to reassess once data on legitimate Tapscript use becomes clearer.

The path to a $1 million Bitcoin is paved by the credibility of its monetary policy, the credibility of its censorship resistance, and the credibility of the decentralized validation network that enforces both.

A $1 million Bitcoin stands or falls with the node network.

What You Can Do If you run a node, you have a say in this.

Study the BIP-110 specification. Review the simulation data published by Bitcoin Block Space Weekly. If you have the technical capability, run the numbers yourself. Then decide based on what the evidence shows, not what the loudest voices on social media tell you to think.

If you are ready to act, switching from Bitcoin Core to Bitcoin Knots is easier than most people think. If you run Umbrel, Start9, MyNode, or RaspiBlitz, Knots is a one-click install from your app 시장, and your existing blockchain data can be transferred. If you run Core on desktop or bare-metal Linux, the migration is similarly straightforward. Either way, you can be running Knots and enforcing BIP-110 in minutes.

Every node that switches to Knots is a vote for Bitcoin’s future as money, and every vote matters.

The data is clear, the trade-offs are honest, and the window is one year. The cost of inaction is gigabytes of permanent data bloat added to every node on the network, daily.

Bitcoin is money, and BIP-110 keeps it that way.

Bitcoin will not survive as a non-monetary arbitrary data relay and storage.

If you believe this, then you are running a sovereign, censorship-resistant node to use Bitcoin as money, permissionlessly.

이 글은 인터넷에서 퍼왔습니다: BIP-110 Protocol: The Necessary Path for Bitcoin to Reach One Million Dollars?

Related: Aave Founder: From King of DeFi to the Foundation of Finance, Our Next Decade-Long War

Original author: @StaniKulechov Original translation by Peggy, BlockBeats Editor’s Note: As DeFi gradually moves beyond its early “narrative-driven” phase and towards scaling and institutionalization, Aave is at a critical juncture. This lengthy article, personally written by founder Stani Kulechov, is not merely a retrospective, but also a comprehensive overview of Aave’s future over the next decade and beyond, as regulatory uncertainties gradually dissipate. With the U.S. Securities and 교환 Commission (SEC) concluding its four-year investigation into the Aave protocol, Aave has passed through its most costly and uncertain phase in terms of compliance. Against this backdrop, Aave’s definition of its role has become increasingly clear: no longer merely positioning itself as a leading DeFi lending protocol, but rather aiming to become a global on-chain credit layer. The following is the…

 

# 분석# 비트코인# 암호# 이더리움# 교환# 마켓# 마켓플레이스# 토큰© 版权声명배열 上一篇 24H Hot Tokens and Key News｜U.S. Treasury Secretary Beshent: Recommends Simultaneous Wash Nomination Hearings and Powell Investigation; Total Unrealized Losses for Strategy and Bitmine Companies Reach $12.671 Billion (February 10) 下一篇 Conversation with Cathie Wood: Eight Insights on the 2026 Grand Plan 상关文章 Matrixport Market Watch: Finding Support Amidst Pressure, Crypto Market Enters a Critical Observation Period 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 16,888 Ethereum’s revenue plummeted 75%: a sign of recession or the pain of transformation? 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 19,908 2 The core challenge of decentralized AI reasoning: How to prove to the entire network that you are not “cheating”? 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 18,029 1 REVOX: AI Agent infrastructure leads the Crypto+AI revolution and creates a new cornerstone for decentralized applicatio 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 180,488 140 The temporary suspension of Yei Finance reflects the risks of DeFi. 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 17,606 Weekly Editor’s Picks (0103-0109) 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 11,412 1 댓글 없음 댓글을 남기시려면 로그인이 필요합니다! 즉시 로그인 댓글이 없습니다... 최신 기사 Did Jane Street “Manipulate” BTC? Decoding the AP System, Understanding the Power Struggle Behind ETF Creation and Redemption Pricing 20시간 전 633 Stop Comparing Bitcoin to Gold—It’s Now a High-Volatility Software Stock 20시간 전 702 Matrixport Research: $25 Billion Gamma Unwinding Imminent, Liquidity Yet to Return Behind the Rebound 20시간 전 646 ERC-5564: Ethereum’s Stealth Era Has Arrived, Receiving Addresses No Longer ‘Exposed’ 20시간 전 540 Hong Kong Regulatory Green Light: Asseto Enables DL Holdings to Achieve Compliance for Two RWA Business Implementations 20시간 전 623 인기 있는 웹사이트TempoLighterGAIB글라이더PlanckRaylsBCPokerVooi Bee.com 세계 최대의 Web3 포털 파트너 코인카프 바이낸스 코인마켓캡 코인게코 코인라이브 갑옷 Bee Network 앱을 다운로드하고 web3 여정을 시작하세요 백지 역할 자주하는 질문 © 2021-2026. 모든 권리 보유. 개인 정보 정책 | 서비스 약관 꿀벌 네트워크 앱 다운로드 Web3 여정을 시작해보세요 세계 최대의 Web3 포털 파트너 CoinCarp Binance CoinMarketCap CoinGecko Coinlive Armors 백지 역할 자주하는 질문 © 2021-2026. 모든 권리 보유. 개인 정보 정책 | 서비스 약관 찾다 찾다사이트에온체인사회의소식 熱门推荐 : 에어드롭 헌터 데이터 분석 암호화폐 유명인 함정 탐지기 한국어 English 繁體中文 简体中文 日本語 Tiếng Việt العربية Bahasa Indonesia हिन्दी اردو Русский 한국어