Crypto Journalist
Amin Ayan
Crypto Journalist
Amin Ayan
Share
Bitcoin Core developer Jimmy Song has criticized the Taproot upgrade for overlooking the “social attack surface” that allowed spam-like activity, such as Ordinals and BRC-20 tokens, to flood the Bitcoin network.
Key Takeaways:
- Jimmy Song argues Taproot introduced a social attack surface that enabled spam-like activity via Ordinals and BRC-20 tokens.
- He claims Taproot failed to deliver on privacy and usability promises, particularly in multi-signature setups.
- The divide over Bitcoin’s purpose deepens, as developers debate whether to support or limit nonfinancial transactions on the network.
In a video posted on X, Song said developers underestimated the unintended consequences of enabling nonfinancial transactions at scale.
“What they ignore is that Taproot had significant trolling value as the upgrade that Bitcoiners were placing their hopes in,” Song said.
“The increase in the social attack surface of this upgrade wasn’t accounted for at all.”
Taproot Aimed to Boost Bitcoin Privacy and Efficiency with Schnorr Signatures
Taproot, activated in November 2021, was introduced to improve Bitcoin’s privacy, efficiency, and scripting capabilities through Schnorr signatures and Script Path Spend.
However, Song argues the upgrade failed to deliver on its core promises. He pointed to poor user experience with multi-signature implementations, noting that Taproot made the process even more complex compared to traditional multisig.
“Bad user experience basically made it a non-starter,” he added.
Song’s comments reflect a broader ideological rift in the Bitcoin community. On one side are figures like Adam Back, Dennis Porter, and Luke Dashjr, who support Bitcoin’s role strictly as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system.
On the other hand are proponents of Ordinals and Runes, like pseudonymous developer Leonidas, who argue that all valid transactions, financial or otherwise, should be welcomed.
That divide intensified earlier this year when Bitcoin Core developers voted to remove the 80-byte limit on OP_RETURN, opening the door for larger non-financial payloads like images, videos, and audio.
While some saw this as progress, others feared a reversal. The uncertainty has led to an exodus to Bitcoin Knots, a competing implementation.
Knots nodes now make up nearly 28% of the network, up from just 67 nodes in March.
Despite his criticism, Song hasn’t completely written off Taproot. “It can, of course, redeem itself,” he said, citing future applications like BitVM and Ark as possible ways to justify the upgrade’s cost.
Meanwhile, Leonidas claims that Ordinals and Runes have contributed over $500 million in transaction fees, bolstering Bitcoin’s long-term security as the block subsidy diminishes.
Still, Dune Analytics data shows fee revenues are inconsistent, ranging from just $3,000 to $537,000 per day in 2025, a far cry from the nearly $10 million peak seen in December 2023.
Dev Threatens Bitcoin Core Fork Over v30 Upgrade and Ordinals Censorship
Leonidas, a leading figure in the Ordinals ecosystem, has warned he will fund a Bitcoin Core fork if developers attempt to censor Ordinals or Runes transactions in the upcoming v30 upgrade.
The open letter, backed by miners controlling over 50% of the network’s hash rate, signals a deepening divide over Bitcoin’s future utility as the network prepares to expand on-chain data capacity.
The v30 upgrade, set for October 2025, will remove the 80-byte OP_RETURN limit and enable up to 4MB of data per transaction, fueling the rise of what critics call “JPEG spam.”
Adam Back of Blockstream argues these data-heavy inscriptions are displacing legitimate transactions, while Leonidas counters that Ordinals have contributed over $500 million in fees since 2023.
As tensions mount, the alternative Bitcoin Knots implementation, opposed to v30’s data policy changes, has grown to control 18% of the network.
Credit: Source link
