在比特币开发人员和用户社区中出现了激烈的争议，以删除或放松OP_Return的限制

比特币核心不是由投票支持的民主。它应该基于粗略的共识。任何人都可以看到放松OP_Return限制没有共识。

A heated dispute has emerged within the Bitcoin developer and user community over a proposal to remove or loosen limits on OP_RETURN, a feature that allows embedding arbitrary data in Bitcoin transactions.

在比特币开发人员和用户社区中出现了激烈的争议，以删除或放松OP_Return的限制，该提案允许将任意数据嵌入比特币交易中。

Bitcoin Core is not a democracy governed by votes. It’s supposed to be based on rough consensus. Anyone can see that there is no consensus on relaxing OP_RETURN limits. Pushing ahead on this change is going down a slippery slope.

比特币核心不是由投票支持的民主。它应该基于粗略的共识。任何人都可以看到放松OP_Return限制没有共识。推进这一变化是沿着湿滑的坡度降低的。

This debate exposes longstanding tensions between those focused on Bitcoin as sound money and those seeking to standardize mempools and "clean up the code."

这场辩论暴露了专注于比特币作为合理金钱的人与寻求标准化孟买并“清理代码”的人之间的长期紧张关系。

The disagreement centers on whether lifting OP_RETURN limits would increase spam-like data in the blockchain, threatening Bitcoin’s core design as a decentralized monetary network.

分歧是指重新申请限制是否会增加区块链中类似垃圾邮件的数据，从而威胁比特币作为分散的货币网络的核心设计。

Bitcoiners, such as Samson Mow, Matthew Krater, and Adam Back state that normalizing non-monetary data use erodes Bitcoin’s purpose as a store of value and sound money.

比特币，例如Samson Mow，Matthew Krater和Adam的Back Node，可以将非货币数据使用的标准化侵蚀比特币的目的作为价值和合理的钱。

Krater draws on everyday analogies — like email spam and bloated apps — to stress that just because someone pays a fee does not make all transactions legitimate.

Krater借鉴了每天的类比（例如电子邮件垃圾邮件和肿的应用程序），以强调仅仅因为有人支付费用并不能使所有交易都没有合法。

“There are spam filters for a reason, and Bitcoin should resist becoming a dumping ground for inscriptions, NFTs, or arbitrary files,” he adds.

他补充说：“有一个垃圾邮件过滤器是有原因的，比特币应该抗拒成为铭文，NFT或任意文件的倾销场所。”

Echoing this, many warn that adding extra data harms node operators by increasing storage burdens and network bloat, effectively turning Bitcoin into a “data storage system” rather than a peer-to-peer financial protocol.

回应这一点，许多人警告说，添加额外的数据通过增加存储负担和网络膨胀来损害节点运算符，从而有效地将比特币转变为“数据存储系统”，而不是点对点财务协议。

“Why are we incentivizing spam?” asks Mow.

“我们为什么激励垃圾邮件？”问割。

He notes that past measures, like Satoshi’s original spam filters and the 2014 OP_RETURN cap, were explicitly meant to prevent Bitcoin’s blockchain from being overloaded with non-financial data.

他指出，过去的措施，例如Satoshi的原始垃圾邮件过滤器和2014年OP_Return Cap，明确旨在防止比特币的区块链被非财务数据超载。

Removing those filters, he argues, invites abuse, potentially undermining Bitcoin’s long-term security and decentralization by making it more costly and cumbersome to run a node.

他认为，删除这些过滤器诱使虐待，可能通过使节点更加昂贵和繁琐来破坏比特币的长期安全和权力下放。

On the other side, Jameson Lopp and some Core contributors maintain that technical discussions belong inside Bitcoin’s GitHub repository, not on social media, and that protocol changes should rely on rational, well-documented arguments.

另一方面，詹姆森·洛普（Jameson LOPP）和一些核心贡献者认为，技术讨论属于比特币的GitHub存储库中，而不是在社交媒体上，并且协议更改应依赖于理性，有据可查的论点。

Lopp notes that while rough consensus guides Bitcoin’s evolution, non-contributors’ opinions on platforms like X do not affect formal development decisions.

LOPP指出，尽管粗略的共识指导了比特币的进化，但非对立者对X等平台的看法并不影响正式的开发决策。

However, Bob Burnett counters that dismissing outside perspectives creates a gatekeeping dynamic that alienates newer or non-technical participants.

但是，鲍勃·伯内特（Bob Burnett）反驳说，驳斥外部观点会产生守门动态，使新的或非技术参与者疏远。

That is a bad, bad look. If guys like Samson and I (or you) can't even weigh-in with an opinion to be considered, then the system is seriously, seriously broken. I disagree with you on this issue here but respect you enough based on your history to say your opinion should count.

那是一个不好的外观。如果像Samson和我（或者您）这样的人甚至无法考虑要考虑的意见，那么系统将被严重打破。我在这里在这个问题上不同意您，但根据您的历史足够尊重您，以至于您的意见应该很重要。

Some defenders of removing the OP_RETURN limits argue that since arbitrary data is already entering the blockchain through methods like Taproot, offering a less harmful, structured avenue (such as OP_RETURN) could mitigate overall damage.

删除OP_Return限制的一些捍卫者认为，由于任意数据已经通过Taproot之类的方法进入区块链，因此提供了一种危害​​不太有害的结构化途径（例如OP_Return），可以减轻整体损害。

But opponents challenge this logic, saying it effectively normalizes spam instead of deterring it.

但是对手挑战了这种逻辑，称其有效地归一化垃圾邮件而不是阻止垃圾邮件。

They highlight that while filters may not eliminate every misuse, they significantly raise the cost and effort of spam attacks—justifying their continued use.

他们强调说，尽管过滤器可能不会消除所有滥用，但它们会大大提高垃圾邮件攻击的成本和精力，从而使他们继续使用。

Underlying the technical arguments is a deeper philosophical rift over Bitcoin’s identity.

技术论点的基础是对比特币身份的更深入的哲学裂痕。

Those against the proposed change emphasize Bitcoin’s cultural foundation: it is a monetary system optimized for censorship resistance, sovereignty, and decentralization—not a general-purpose database.

反对拟议的变更的人强调了比特币的文化基础：这是一种针对抵抗力，主权和权力下放的货币体系，而不是通用数据库。

They point out that relaxing controls on non-financial uses opens the door to “mission creep,” where Bitcoin’s defining properties are gradually diluted, mirroring the trajectory of more feature-heavy, centralized blockchains like Ethereum.

他们指出，非财务用途的放松控件为“任务蠕变”打开了大门，在那里，比特币的定义特性逐渐被稀释，反映了更丰富功能更丰富，集中式区块链（如以太坊）的轨迹。

Developers backing the change, however, often frame their stance as promoting user freedom and adaptability, asserting that Bitcoin’s protocol should not rigidly restrict potential use cases unless there is clear and present harm.

但是，支持这一变化的开发人员经常将自己的立场构成促进用户自由和适应性的立场，并断言比特币的协议不应严格限制潜在用例，除非有明确的危害。

However, past upgrades like SegWit and Taproot have already led to unexpected network congestion, as noted by Jesse Meyers.

但是，正如杰西·迈耶斯（Jesse Meyers）指出的那样，过去的升级和Taproot等过去的升级已经导致了意外的网络拥堵。

Didn’t segwit / taproot unexpectedly enable NFTs on Bitcoin? And Core didn’t anticipate that outcome…and now we’re supposed to trust Core’s opinion that there’s no downsides to removing this other data constraint?Completely baffled by @lopp and other staunch advocates for this change. https://t.co/53YjP2gJ8I

Segwit / Taproot是否意外地启用了比特币上的NFT？ Core没想到这一结果……现在我们应该相信Core的观点，即没有弊端可以消除其他数据约束？@LOPP和其他坚定的倡导者对此更改感到困惑。 https://t.co/53yjp2gj8i

The debate has also sparked broader concerns about governance. Some, like Mow, warn that if Bitcoin Core developers push changes without broad support, the community has options.

辩论还引发了人们对治理的广泛关注。像MOW这样的一些人警告说，如果比特币核心开发人员在没有广泛支持的情况下推动变化，那么社区就有选择。

They can withhold funding from developer groups, switch to alternative software like Bitcoin Knots, or organize user-activated soft forks (UASF) to reassert control.

他们可以从开发人员组中扣留资金，切换到替代软件（例如比特币结），或者组织用户激活的软叉（UASF）重新控制控制。

The rhetoric that you must be a Core dev for your opinion to matter is not conducive for good faith discussions to reach consensus.However, there are many things that can be done to mitigate this. If Bitcoin Core devs are going rogue, as @mattkratter says, there is actually a lot of power

您必须成为重要意见的核心开发事件的言论不利于真诚讨论达成共识。但是，可以做很多事情来减轻这种情况。如@mattkratter所说，如果比特币核心开发人员流氓，实际上有很多力量