The OP_CAT Meme Campaign: Is This How We Decide Bitcoin Protocol Changes?

Key Points:

• The OP_CAT meme campaign has gained momentum in the Bitcoin community.
• Cat memes have become a dominant theme in the campaign.
• However, meme campaigns may not be the best way of deciding and discussing protocol changes.
• The depth of the content in these campaigns is often superficial.
• There are alternative proposals, such as CTV, that can handle the same use cases more efficiently.
• The combination of OP_CAT with other OPs poses risks and opens up design possibilities that may not be desirable.
• Decentralized Exchanges (DEXes), enabled by OP_CAT, have caused chaos and centralization issues on other blockchains.
• We should learn from the mistakes of other blockchains and avoid rushing into similar problems.
• The activation of OP_CAT would forever bind Bitcoin to its effects, regardless of future proposals.
• Meme campaigns may be fun, but they are not suitable for deciding the development process of Bitcoin.

Article:

The Question of Meme Campaigns in Bitcoin Consensus Changes

The recent OP_CAT meme campaign has gained significant momentum within the Bitcoin community. It’s no surprise that cat memes are dominating this campaign, as cats have been the most viral meme on the internet for years. Taproot Wizards, the group behind the campaign, has embraced the use of cat memes to push their agenda, including trolling Luke over his dietary choices.

However, one must question whether meme campaigns are an appropriate method of deciding and discussing consensus changes for a protocol as valuable as Bitcoin. While the campaign has produced numerous music videos, educational initiatives, and contests, much of the content has been superficial and lacks depth.

Rijndael, an “Artificer” at Taproot Wizards, is one of the few individuals actively exploring and experimenting with OP_CAT to develop use case examples. He has created a demo showcasing an OP_CAT-based covenant script. This script enforces specific conditions for spending Bitcoin, and by consensus, there is no other way to spend these coins without meeting those exact conditions. The script size required for this emulation is quite extensive.

But the question remains: what is the value of OP_CAT in emulating basic template covenants when there are already more efficient proposals available? Proposals such as CTV, TXHASH, OP_TX, and APO can handle these use cases with significantly less data cost. The argument for the flexibility of OP_CAT falls short when it comes at the expense of using 30 OP calls to achieve what can be done with just one. Is this a valid reason for a consensus change in Bitcoin? The logic behind such a decision seems absurd.

Downplaying Risks

Despite the claim that OP_CAT is merely about concatenating two strings, there is a disingenuous narrative surrounding its proposal. The combination of OP_CAT with CSFS (CheckSigFromStack) opens up a vast design space for Bitcoin script, not all of it positive. CSFS allows the verification of a signature on arbitrary data during script execution, while OP_CAT “glues” different pieces of data together on the stack.

This combination presents possibilities such as enforcing amounts or relationships between inputs and outputs within a transaction. It enables the creation of open-ended UTXOs that anyone can spend as long as specific criteria are met. When combined with OP_RETURN based assets, this starts resembling the functionality of Decentralized Exchanges (DEXes).

However, DEXes have caused significant problems on other blockchains. They introduce chaos, volatility in fee dynamics, and centralization issues within the base consensus layers of these protocols. Rushing to bring these problems to Bitcoin or exacerbating them by introducing more dynamic and flexible ways of embedding Bitcoin assets in DEXes is a reckless approach. It disregards the lessons learned from other blockchains in the past decade.

Forever Bound by the Cat

Looking at the interaction between CSFS and CAT, it is worth noting that Reardencode’s recent LNHANCE proposal offers a blockspace-efficient path to eltoo for Lightning network. However, if OP_CAT were active prior to this proposal, we would be unable to avoid the detrimental side effects of combining the two. This dynamic would hold true for every soft fork proposal going forward if OP_CAT were ever activated. It would make it impossible to escape the downsides and risks enabled by combining OP_CAT with new proposals.

Is this the reality we want to enter simply because of a meme campaign? Are we willing to embrace wildly inefficient means of achieving our goals instead of considering more efficient and purpose-built proposals? The answer should be a resounding no.

The Risks of Meme-Centric Decision Making

While meme campaigns can be fun and foster a sense of community involvement, they are inadequate for deciding the development process of Bitcoin. They struggle to capture the nuance and complexity involved in these discussions. Steering the consensus of a network like Bitcoin based purely on the value of a meme rather than reasoned consideration of proposals and their implications is a disaster waiting to happen.

Bitcoin’s conservative and cautious development process has kept it at the forefront of the cryptocurrency space. Shitcoins have come and gone, suffering the consequences of their carefree and fly-by-night development attitudes. Bitcoin needs to break out of its current stagnation, but resorting to uncritical memes and music videos is not the way forward. Such an approach risks undermining the solid and conservative foundation that made Bitcoin valuable in the first place.

Hot Take:

The OP_CAT meme campaign may have garnered attention and created a sense of excitement within the Bitcoin community, but it raises questions about the decision-making process for protocol changes. While memes can be enjoyable and foster community involvement, they are not suitable for determining the future of a technology as significant as Bitcoin.

The focus should be on reasoned considerations and thorough discussions of proposals, rather than relying on superficial campaigns. There are more efficient alternatives to OP_CAT, such as CTV, that can handle the same use cases with fewer complications.

Furthermore, we must learn from the mistakes of other blockchains and avoid rushing into similar problems. Decentralized Exchanges, for example, have caused chaos and centralization issues on other platforms. Bringing these issues to Bitcoin or exacerbating them with meme-centric decision-making is a reckless approach.

Bitcoin’s conservative development process has kept it at the forefront of the cryptocurrency space. While progress is important, it should not come at the cost of compromising the solid and conservative foundation that underpins Bitcoin’s value.

In conclusion, meme campaigns are fun, but they should not dictate the future of Bitcoin. We must approach protocol changes with caution and prioritize thoughtful discussions and proposals for the long-term success of the network.