The post F2Pool Co-Founder Refuses Bitcoin Anti-Spam Soft Fork appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Chun Wang, co-founder of major Bitcoin mining pool F2Pool, pushed back against a proposed temporary soft fork aimed at limiting data spam on the Bitcoin network. Wang wrote in a Monday X post that “BIP-444 is a bad idea.” He added that he, and presumably F2Pool, are “not going to soft fork anything,” whether it is “temporary or not.” He said, “Feel sad that some devs [are] moving further and further in the wrong direction.” Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP)-444 is a temporary soft-fork proposal for the Bitcoin network aimed at restricting the inclusion of arbitrary data, which its proponents view mainly as spam. The soft fork would limit non-transaction data — which enables alternative uses for the Bitcoin blockchain — to 83 bytes, among other limitations. Source: Chun Wang Related: Bitcoin upgrade is splitting developers and purists BIP-444 and its raison d’être BIP-444 appears to be a response to a late September update from leading Bitcoin node software Bitcoin Core. The update in question removed the 80-byte cap on OP_RETURN, a part of a transaction script that allows users to embed arbitrary data. Many have viewed the change as corporate capture of the Bitcoin blockchain, since it allows companies to build layer 2s and other infrastructure on Bitcoin. Furthermore, some argue that allowing more arbitrary data onchain results in faster increases in blockchain size, higher node requirements and greater centralization. Others pointed out that this is part of a debate that dates back to the very early days of Bitcoin (BTC). Additionally, proponents of the change highlight that it is hard to ensure miners enforce a rule that goes against their own incentives. A January 2024 review revealed that miners, such as F2Pool, were already including non-standard transactions that exceeded OP_RETURN limits. The BIP, submitted by pseudonymous developer Dathon Ohm, is called… The post F2Pool Co-Founder Refuses Bitcoin Anti-Spam Soft Fork appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Chun Wang, co-founder of major Bitcoin mining pool F2Pool, pushed back against a proposed temporary soft fork aimed at limiting data spam on the Bitcoin network. Wang wrote in a Monday X post that “BIP-444 is a bad idea.” He added that he, and presumably F2Pool, are “not going to soft fork anything,” whether it is “temporary or not.” He said, “Feel sad that some devs [are] moving further and further in the wrong direction.” Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP)-444 is a temporary soft-fork proposal for the Bitcoin network aimed at restricting the inclusion of arbitrary data, which its proponents view mainly as spam. The soft fork would limit non-transaction data — which enables alternative uses for the Bitcoin blockchain — to 83 bytes, among other limitations. Source: Chun Wang Related: Bitcoin upgrade is splitting developers and purists BIP-444 and its raison d’être BIP-444 appears to be a response to a late September update from leading Bitcoin node software Bitcoin Core. The update in question removed the 80-byte cap on OP_RETURN, a part of a transaction script that allows users to embed arbitrary data. Many have viewed the change as corporate capture of the Bitcoin blockchain, since it allows companies to build layer 2s and other infrastructure on Bitcoin. Furthermore, some argue that allowing more arbitrary data onchain results in faster increases in blockchain size, higher node requirements and greater centralization. Others pointed out that this is part of a debate that dates back to the very early days of Bitcoin (BTC). Additionally, proponents of the change highlight that it is hard to ensure miners enforce a rule that goes against their own incentives. A January 2024 review revealed that miners, such as F2Pool, were already including non-standard transactions that exceeded OP_RETURN limits. The BIP, submitted by pseudonymous developer Dathon Ohm, is called…

F2Pool Co-Founder Refuses Bitcoin Anti-Spam Soft Fork

2025/10/29 16:55

Chun Wang, co-founder of major Bitcoin mining pool F2Pool, pushed back against a proposed temporary soft fork aimed at limiting data spam on the Bitcoin network.

Wang wrote in a Monday X post that “BIP-444 is a bad idea.” He added that he, and presumably F2Pool, are “not going to soft fork anything,” whether it is “temporary or not.”

He said, “Feel sad that some devs [are] moving further and further in the wrong direction.”

Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP)-444 is a temporary soft-fork proposal for the Bitcoin network aimed at restricting the inclusion of arbitrary data, which its proponents view mainly as spam. The soft fork would limit non-transaction data — which enables alternative uses for the Bitcoin blockchain — to 83 bytes, among other limitations.

Source: Chun Wang

Related: Bitcoin upgrade is splitting developers and purists

BIP-444 and its raison d’être

BIP-444 appears to be a response to a late September update from leading Bitcoin node software Bitcoin Core. The update in question removed the 80-byte cap on OP_RETURN, a part of a transaction script that allows users to embed arbitrary data.

Many have viewed the change as corporate capture of the Bitcoin blockchain, since it allows companies to build layer 2s and other infrastructure on Bitcoin. Furthermore, some argue that allowing more arbitrary data onchain results in faster increases in blockchain size, higher node requirements and greater centralization.

Others pointed out that this is part of a debate that dates back to the very early days of Bitcoin (BTC). Additionally, proponents of the change highlight that it is hard to ensure miners enforce a rule that goes against their own incentives. A January 2024 review revealed that miners, such as F2Pool, were already including non-standard transactions that exceeded OP_RETURN limits.

The BIP, submitted by pseudonymous developer Dathon Ohm, is called a “Reduced Data Temporary Softfork” and suggests to “temporarily limit the size of data fields at the consensus level.” The limit would last until Bitcoin block 987,424, or about 1.27 years from now.

In a dedicated mailing list, the creator explained that “the idea is to strongly reaffirm in consensus that bitcoin is money, not data storage.” “After a year, the soft fork expires, giving us time to come up with a more permanent solution,“ they said.

Related: Ordinals dev floats forking Bitcoin Core amid censorship concerns

What does BIP-444 do?

BIP-444 is a temporary soft fork that would close most data-embedding paths on Bitcoin, including stricter size caps on outputs and pushes, bans on annex, unknown witness versions, deep Taproot trees, OP_SUCCESS* and conditional branches. This limits Ordinal-based non-fungible token (NFT) creation, large data payloads and complex scripts while keeping simple monetary unaffected.

The BIP text argues that with modern data compression, it is possible to embed “objectionable images (often illegal to even possess) in as few as 300–400 bytes.” This would allow “a malicious actor to mine a single transaction with illegal or universally abhorrent content and credibly claim that Bitcoin itself is a system for distributing it.”

Bitcoin developer and cypherpunk Peter Todd, on the other hand, stated that the approach is also ineffective in achieving its intended goal. Todd demonstrated this by embedding the entire BIP-444 text in a Bitcoin transaction that would be compliant with the soft fork.

Still, the proponent of the change highlighted that sending it costs over $100 in fees and argued that if embedding illegal data is made harder, “it would not make sense to hold node operators legally responsible.” They explained:

Still, some view the distinction as arbitrary and unrealistic. One X user demonstrated the idea by sharing two commands that would gather data from an image stored on the Bitcoin network, highlighting how scarce the differences are in practice.

Source: Rijndael

Magazine: ZK-proofs are bringing smart contracts to Bitcoin

Source: https://cointelegraph.com/news/f2pool-co-founder-refuses-anti-spam-soft-fork?utm_source=rss_feed&utm_medium=feed%3Ftimestamp%3D1761727974296%26_rnd%3Dgs8lsl%26cb%3Dgs8lsl%26_dc%3D1761727974296&utm_campaign=rss_partner_inbound

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.
Share Insights

You May Also Like

Pavel's humanity, and Ton's challenges

Pavel's humanity, and Ton's challenges

I really like what Pavel mentioned about not using a mobile phone. Essentially, this is an "information fasting" approach to the challenges of information overload, contrasting with the "food fasting" that everyone loves using apps. One is metaphysical, the other is physical, but ultimately, both affect the mind and body, influencing hormones like cortisol. Now and in the future, attention is the scarcest resource. Being able to freely disconnect from electronic devices is a luxury, a freedom with its own barriers. Pavel is also an extreme craftsman. The advantage of being a craftsman is that you can lead a small team to create a killer app. However, the limitation is that Telegram, as the largest instant messaging software outside of China and the US, cannot become another Tencent platform. This same culture has also influenced its Web3 project, TON. By the way, let me talk about my close observation of TON over the past four years as the first Chinese institutional investor in the world. 1. The wrong technological path was taken. TON's stubborn insistence on using C++ seems like a kind of technological purist obsession. Historically, Russians have repeatedly taken the wrong turn on the "data technology tree": the Soviet Union failed to adapt to the transistor revolution, became obsessed with vacuum tube performance optimization, and missed the entire chip wave. They often overemphasize performance and control, but neglect the ecosystem and development experience. TON's SDK, toolchain, and documentation ecosystem lack standardization, making the development threshold too high; this is not a syntax problem, but a problem of lacking platform thinking. 2. Uneven ecological composition. Currently, it's basically only Russians and Chinese who are active, but resource allocation is clearly biased towards the Russian-speaking region. This is something everyone is already familiar with. 3. Oligopoly. Funding, traffic, and narrative resources within the ecosystem are concentrated on a few "top" companies/projects. Everyone knows they must curry favor with the "top" teams, but mid-tier projects are severely squeezed out. There is also a long-term power struggle between foundations and the oligopolistic "top" companies, resulting in constant internal friction. 4. Failure to accept oneself. Accepting and reconciling with oneself is crucial for any individual or organization. Only on this basis can you face yourself honestly and leverage your strengths while mitigating your weaknesses. However, TON seems obsessed with pitching to Musk, persuading American investors, and getting to the White House. The truth is, no matter how hard it tries, in the eyes of others, TON remains a public chain with a Russian background. In contrast, BNB didn't try to play the "American" role. Instead, it first became the most popular chain in the Eastern Time Zone, simultaneously creating a sense of FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) among Westerners, before smoothly expanding internationally—a much more effective approach. 5. The story of "adoption for 1 billion users" has been told for four years, and it's still just a story. Pavel keeps telling a grand story of "connecting Telegram's 1 billion users with the blockchain world," but this story has yet to truly materialize. The reason isn't that the vision is false, but rather structural constraints: In order to survive and ensure Pavel's personal safety (in recent years, Pavel has become increasingly obsessed with his physical safety, given several incidents, including the recent events in France), Telegram must maintain a "superficial" separation from TON to avoid crossing regulatory red lines; this separation prevents TON from ever truly integrating with Telegram's ecosystem. Even stablecoins like USDE have maintained a supply of only a few hundred million—indicating that the story is grand, but the reality is small. TON possesses the perfectionism of engineering geeks, yet lacks the warmth of ecological collaboration; it has a massive entry point, but is hampered by regulatory realities; it has its own advantages, but has not yet reconciled with itself. It has a narrative and ideals, but these need to be transformed into a sustainable balance of systems and incentives. I wish the TON ecosystem will continue to improve.
Share
PANews2025/10/30 14:00