There has been quite a heated debate in the Bitcoin community over a proposal called BIP-110 in recent days. Here's what happened: a developer named Dathon Ohm proposed a plan to implement a one-year soft fork that would restrict transactions from including non-monetary data. Basically, it targets things like Ordinals inscriptions, which are seen as occupying block space and considered "junk data." This proposal received support from the Bitcoin Knots group and Luke Dashjr.

But interestingly, once the proposal was out, it immediately triggered a backlash from a bunch of OGs who have been involved in the scene for years. Wang Chun from F2Pool was quite blunt, directly comparing the proposal to "using the guise of protecting children to shove a bunch of nonsense down our throats." Jameson Lopp from Casa also didn't hold back, publishing a lengthy article criticizing the move as reckless and irrational, and saying it’s doomed to fail. Adam Back from Blockstream was even more direct, arguing that this is essentially attacking Bitcoin’s credibility as a store of value. To fix those annoying "junk messages," they’re proposing changes at the consensus layer, which could have more serious consequences than the problem itself.

The core of these objections boils down to one sentence: don’t joke about the protocol’s neutrality and immutability. Bitcoin is what it is because its rules treat everyone equally. Once you start down the path of censoring certain data through consensus, today it might be images, but tomorrow it could be other things. The risk of sliding down this slope is too great.