The recent surge in popularity of Bitcoin Ordinals and the BRC-20 token standard has ignited a fierce debate within the Bitcoin community. What started as an experimental way to inscribe data on the Bitcoin blockchain has evolved into a full-blown ecosystem, complete with NFTs, speculative trading, and soaring transaction fees. But now, a powerful voice from Bitcoin’s core development team is calling for action — labeling Ordinals as a bug that should be patched.
Luke Dashjr, a long-time Bitcoin core developer since 2011, recently sparked controversy by stating that Ordinals exploit a vulnerability in Bitcoin Core, allowing users to flood the network with what he considers “spam.” His comments sent shockwaves through the market, triggering a sharp sell-off in ORDI — the native token of the Ordinals ecosystem — which dropped double-digit percentages within hours.
But is this the beginning of the end for Bitcoin-based inscriptions? Or is the ecosystem too entrenched to roll back?
Let’s dive into the technical arguments, community reactions, and economic incentives shaping this high-stakes debate.
The Technical Argument: Is Ordinals a Bug or a Feature?
Luke Dashjr argues that Ordinals abuse a long-standing data relay policy in Bitcoin Core. Since 2013, Bitcoin Core has allowed nodes to set custom limits on how much extra data can be included in transactions — particularly via OP_RETURN outputs or Taproot-based scripts. Ordinals cleverly encode inscriptions as script data, bypassing traditional size restrictions.
“Ordinals are using a bug in Bitcoin Core to send spam messages on-chain. This was fixed in Bitcoin Knots v25.1. I hope it will finally be resolved in the upcoming v27 release.”
— Luke Dashjr, X (formerly Twitter)
In essence, Dashjr believes that storing non-financial data like NFTs or tokens on Bitcoin violates the network’s original purpose: to serve as a decentralized digital currency. He views these inscriptions not as innovation but as bloatware that degrades node performance and increases costs for all users.
His proposed fix? Enforce stricter default limits:
datacarriersize: Restrict data embedded inOP_RETURNoutputs.maxscriptsize: Limit script sizes used by Taproot-based inscription protocols.
If implemented in Bitcoin Core, these changes would effectively render Ordinals and BRC-20 tokens non-functional on standard nodes — unless users run custom configurations.
However, Dashjr acknowledges one alternative: a dedicated inscription sidechain anchored to Bitcoin. Much like Layer 2 solutions on Ethereum, such a chain could batch and commit hashes to Bitcoin while handling high-volume inscription activity off-chain. This way, Bitcoin remains lean and secure, while creative use cases continue evolving elsewhere.
Community Response: Innovation vs. Purity
Not everyone agrees with Dashjr’s hardline stance. The crypto community is split between Bitcoin purists and ecosystem expansionists.
On one side, supporters like early adopter Samson Mow argue that the BRC-20 bubble is unsustainable, calling it a short-term speculative frenzy that will collapse under its own weight. They warn that paying high fees just to mint JPEGs distorts Bitcoin’s incentive model.
On the other hand, many see Ordinals as revitalizing Bitcoin’s ecosystem. After years of stagnation compared to Ethereum and Solana, Bitcoin is now seeing record user engagement and developer interest.
“Taproot accidentally opened Pandora’s box — but not just spam. It brought new life to Bitcoin.”
— Yu Xian, Founder of SlowMist
According to CryptoSlam, Bitcoin NFT sales have surpassed $1.03 billion**, with over 216,000 unique users — surpassing Ethereum in monthly NFT volume. Dune Analytics shows more than **46 million inscriptions created**, generating over **3,360 BTC (~$140M) in transaction fees alone.
This isn’t just noise — it’s economic activity.
Who Holds the Power? Miners, Exchanges, and Users
While developers propose changes, real power lies with miners and economic stakeholders.
Bitcoin upgrades require consensus — not just from developers, but from miners who validate blocks and nodes who run the software. If miners profit from inscription fees, they have little incentive to support restrictive changes.
And profit they do.
- BTC.com reports daily transaction fees averaging 236.6 BTC — up 33.8x from年初.
- Blockworks Research found that November alone generated $38.7M in mining revenue from Ordinals-related transactions.
- Major pools like F2Pool note that even if some developers oppose inscriptions, miners won’t voluntarily cut their income.
Exchanges are equally invested. ORDI’s 24-hour trading volume exceeded $1.31 billion, with platforms like OKX and Binance capturing over 79.5% of that volume. Such liquidity makes ORDI one of the most actively traded memecoins — despite its technical roots in protocol-layer innovation.
As F2Pool co-founder神魚 pointed out:
“Bitcoin isn’t Ethereum — developers don’t rule. Miners vote with hash power. If they reject an update, it fails.”
In other words, any attempt to remove Ordinals must overcome massive economic resistance.
FAQ: Your Burning Questions Answered
Q: Can Bitcoin Core actually ban Ordinals?
A: Technically yes — if a majority of miners and nodes adopt a new version that restricts inscription-friendly transaction types. But given current economic incentives, widespread adoption is unlikely.
Q: Will BRC-20 tokens disappear if Ordinals are disabled?
A: Likely yes — BRC-20 relies entirely on the Ordinals protocol for minting and transferring tokens. No inscriptions = no BRC-20 functionality on-chain.
Q: Are there alternatives if Bitcoin blocks inscriptions?
A: Yes. A Layer 2 solution or dedicated “inscription chain” anchored to Bitcoin could preserve functionality without burdening the mainnet.
Q: Is ORDI still a good investment?
A: High risk, high reward. Regulatory uncertainty and protocol risks remain, but strong trading volume and ecosystem growth suggest ongoing demand.
Q: Are inscriptions harmful to Bitcoin?
A: It depends on perspective. Critics cite network bloat and increased fees; proponents highlight renewed innovation and user growth.
Q: Could this lead to a Bitcoin fork?
A: Possible but improbable. With spot ETF approvals pending in 2025, stakeholders are incentivized to avoid contentious splits that could undermine institutional confidence.
The Road Ahead: Coexistence or Conflict?
The clash between ideological purity and market-driven evolution isn’t new in crypto — but rarely has it been so financially charged.
While Luke Dashjr and like-minded developers want to preserve Bitcoin as a lean, secure monetary network, the market has clearly voted for expansion. The rise of BRC-20 tokens, growing NFT markets, and rising fee income show that there's strong demand for programmable assets on Bitcoin.
👉 See how next-gen blockchain applications are pushing the limits of decentralized networks today.
Rather than outright removal, a more likely outcome is technical compromise: either soft-fork improvements that mitigate spam without killing innovation, or the emergence of scalable offshoots like Taproot Assets or a future inscription L2.
One thing is certain: Bitcoin’s role is evolving. Whether this shift happens on-chain or through adjacent layers may define its relevance in the next crypto cycle.
Final Thoughts
The debate over Bitcoin inscriptions isn’t just about code — it’s about vision. Should Bitcoin remain a minimalist store of value? Or should it embrace new use cases, even at the cost of some bloat?
There’s no easy answer. But with billions in economic value now tied to Ordinals and BRC-20, any attempt to roll back progress will face fierce resistance.
For investors and builders alike, staying informed and adaptable is key.
Core Keywords:
Bitcoin Ordinals
BRC-20 tokens
Bitcoin Core update
NFT on Bitcoin
blockchain scalability
cryptocurrency mining revenue
decentralized applications
Bitcoin ecosystem growth