Ripples in the Bitcoin Sea: Ocean Pool’s Transaction Blacklist Sparks Industry Uproar

Ripples in the Bitcoin Sea: Ocean Pool’s Transaction Blacklist Sparks Industry Uproar

The bitcoin mining pool, Ocean Pool, has faced significant backlash and controversy due to its decision to blacklist certain transactions in its block templates. These excluded transactions include those related to coinjoins, Ordinal inscriptions, and BRC20 tokens. Luke Dashjr, the operator behind Ocean, clarified that the roots of this debate go back to 2014 and the release of Bitcoin Core 0.90, which aimed to reduce blockchain data storage to combat spam. However, critics argue that by blocking these transactions, Ocean is forfeiting potential fees and engaging in economically irrational behavior. The community remains divided on the issue, with some supporting Ocean’s actions and others viewing it as censorship.

▶ [Kucoin] Transaction fee 0% discount CODE◀

Bitcoin Community Divided by Ocean Pool’s Exclusion Tactics

In recent days, discussions have intensified around the emerging bitcoin mining pool Ocean and its decision to exclude certain transactions, specifically those linked to Ordinal inscriptions and coinjoin activities. Luke Dashjr, a key figure in Ocean’s operations and a prominent Bitcoin Core developer, clarified to the public that the roots of this debate stretch back to 2014. He emphasized that the release of Bitcoin Core 0.90 was a pivotal moment, introducing measures aimed at curbing blockchain data storage to mitigate spam.

Background on Ocean Pool’s transaction blacklist

The bitcoin (BTC) mining pool, Ocean Pool, has recently been at the center of much controversy due to its decision to blacklist certain transactions in its block templates. These excluded transactions encompass those related to coinjoins, Ordinal inscriptions, and BRC20 tokens. Luke Dashjr, the operator behind Ocean, has been vocal about the pool’s approach and chose to address these issues on a social media platform.

“The OP_RETURN discussion is not new and dates back to 2014 when Bitcoin Core 0.9.0 was released with the OP_RETURN policy included which was intended to discourage more egregious forms of spam,” Dashjr wrote. However, he further noted that Ocean Mining did not intend to filter coinjoins and that he has ideas on how to “alleviate the recent issue.” He added that he was willing “to work collaboratively on a solution in good faith.”

Luke Dashjr’s clarification on the issue

According to Dashjr, the controversy surrounding Ocean Pool’s transaction blacklist has its roots in the release of Bitcoin Core 0.90 in 2014. This version of Bitcoin Core introduced measures to curb blockchain data storage and mitigate spam. While some argue that the exclusion of certain transactions, such as coinjoins and Ordinal inscriptions, constitutes censorship, Dashjr emphasizes that it was designed to discourage spam and protect the network from abuse.

In a social media post, Dashjr acknowledged the criticism but clarified that Ocean Mining did not intend to filter coinjoins. He also expressed a willingness to work collaboratively on finding a solution to the issue. It is clear that Dashjr believes he is acting in the best interest of the Bitcoin community and its long-term sustainability.

Critics argue that Ocean is forfeiting potential fees

There is significant dissent regarding the actions of Dashjr and Ocean. Critics have pointed out that by blocking transactions, Ocean is actually forfeiting potential fees. They argue that economically irrational behavior does not fare well in free market environments. For example, one analyst highlighted that one of Ocean’s block templates could miss out on 17% in fees. However, supporters of Ocean’s approach argue that economics are more complex, and there are short and long-term consequences to consider.

Juan Galt countered the argument against Ocean’s exclusion tactics by stating that there are complexities involved in economic decisions, and short-term sacrifices may lead to long-term gains. This perspective suggests that Ocean’s decision to exclude certain transactions may be a strategic move aimed at protecting the network’s integrity and long-term sustainability.

Supporters defend Ocean’s approach

Despite the criticism, there are supporters who stand by Ocean’s decision to exclude certain transactions. Guy Swann, for instance, argues that the blacklisting does not constitute censorship and that Bitcoin should be exclusively utilized for financial transactions. Swann believes that Ordinals and inscriptions are not using Bitcoin as money but are rather using Bitcoin nodes to store their garbage.

Swann further emphasizes the necessity of defining what the Bitcoin protocol does and believes that restricting the system to only allow and facilitate Bitcoin money is not censorship but logical optimization. This perspective sees Ocean’s exclusion tactics as necessary for the proper functioning of the Bitcoin network.

▶ [Kucoin] Transaction fee 0% discount CODE◀

Different Perspectives on Censorship Debate

The debate surrounding Ocean’s exclusion tactics and Dashjr’s clarification has sparked various perspectives on censorship within the Bitcoin community. Guy Swann argues that blacklisting certain transactions is not censorship, as it is necessary to define the protocol’s purpose and optimize its functioning. Swann believes that Bitcoin should solely be used for financial transactions.

Udi Wertheimer disagrees with Swann and highlights the temporary permissiveness of allowing certain transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain. Wertheimer implies that if individuals abuse this permissiveness, they may be filtered out to protect the network’s integrity.

Scott Melker adds to the discussion by emphasizing the concept of permissionless in Bitcoin. He argues that removing transactions, even if they are considered awful, is an act of permission and censorship. Melker suggests that the permissionless nature of Bitcoin should be upheld to ensure the network’s openness and freedom.

Adam Back, the founder of Blockstream, supports Dashjr’s contrarian approach and compares it to the contrarian actions of F2pool and Peter Todd. Back believes that Dashjr’s unorthodox methods contribute to the robustness of Bitcoin and help avoid groupthink in the Bitcoin community.

Opposing Views on Dashjr and Ocean’s Actions

The controversy surrounding Dashjr and Ocean’s actions has led to opposing views within the Bitcoin community. Some critics have taken a mocking stance towards Dashjr. Inscriptions and messages have emerged, playfully inscribing Dashjr’s likeness and conveying messages to him through Ordinal inscriptions. These acts suggest a level of disapproval and skepticism towards Dashjr and his decisions.

Furthermore, some individuals have called for Dashjr to be ostracized from the Bitcoin community due to their belief that he is a bad actor. They argue that Dashjr’s actions in the past have demonstrated his questionable behavior and that continued support for him is unwarranted.

Mocking remarks have also been made about Dashjr’s loss of Bitcoin, suggesting a lack of trust in his ability to secure Bitcoin. These remarks highlight a lack of faith in Dashjr’s decision-making and raise concerns about his suitability as a custodian of the Bitcoin network.

In conclusion, the controversy surrounding Ocean Pool’s exclusion tactics has divided the Bitcoin community. On one side, supporters argue that the blacklisting of certain transactions is necessary for the optimization and integrity of the network. On the other side, critics argue that Ocean is forfeiting potential fees and that Dashjr’s actions warrant skepticism and condemnation. The debate highlights the challenges of balancing openness, censorship, and economic considerations within the Bitcoin ecosystem.

▶ [Kucoin] Transaction fee 0% discount CODE◀