{"id":17212,"date":"2023-02-02T15:54:21","date_gmt":"2023-02-02T15:54:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/crowdfundjunction.com\/blog\/bitcoin-records-largest-mined-block-to-date-4-mb-block-containing-nft-causes-unease-among-small-block-supporters-bitcoin-news\/"},"modified":"2023-02-02T15:54:21","modified_gmt":"2023-02-02T15:54:21","slug":"bitcoin-records-largest-mined-block-to-date-4-mb-block-containing-nft-causes-unease-among-small-block-supporters-bitcoin-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/crowdfundjunction.com\/blog\/bitcoin-records-largest-mined-block-to-date-4-mb-block-containing-nft-causes-unease-among-small-block-supporters-bitcoin-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Bitcoin Records Largest Mined Block to Date, 4 MB Block Containing NFT Causes Unease Among Small-Block Supporters\u00a0 \u2013 Bitcoin News"},"content":{"rendered":"

(Originally posted on : Bitcoin News )<\/b>
\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/header>\n
\n\n<\/div>\n

Amid the controversy surrounding the Ordinals project and the debate over what types of data should be stored on the Bitcoin blockchain, the network mined its largest block, nearly 4 MB in size, containing just 63 transactions. One of the transactions was a 3.94 MB Ordinal inscription featuring an image of a wizard, and the Bitcoin-issued non-fungible token (NFT) has generated significant discussion.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Small Block Advocates Speak Out Against the 4 MB Bitcoin Block With NFT Inscription<\/h2>\n

On Feb. 1, 2023, the Luxor mining pool mined the largest block (#774,628<\/a>) ever recorded on the Bitcoin network, approximately 3.96 MB. The coinbase parameter of the block contains a message indicating its discovery by Luxor. The mining pool also took to Twitter to inform the community about the discovery and the reason for the large size of the block.<\/p>\n

\u201cLast night, Luxor harnessed its magic energy and freed an ancient wizard from his cosmic cage where he had been trapped for many epochs,\u201d the mining pool tweeted<\/a>. \u201cKeen observers of the chain of time may have noticed a 4 MB anomaly, unlike anything seen before. Will there be others?\u201d The tweet also included an image of the \u201cTaproot Wizard,\u201d an Ordinal inscription #652<\/a>, attached to the block. Taproot, a feature applied to the Bitcoin network on Nov. 12, 2021, was activated at block height 709,632 and brought several new benefits to BTC<\/a> users.<\/p>\n

\n

A 3.96 MB block #774628 has been just added to Bitcoin by @LuxorTechTeam<\/a> exploiting buggy Taproot! The previous record was just 2.77 MB. Here’s the list of the largest blocks: https:\/\/t.co\/LsavqjLFEq<\/a><\/p>\n

This will trigger many! Are we on the verge of a new blocksize war? \ud83e\udd13<\/p>\n

\u2014 Nikita Zhavoronkov (@nikzh) February 2, 2023<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Essentially, Taproot allows multiple participants in a transaction to create a single combined digital signature, making transactions more efficient and private. Since the creation of Ordinals, it has been discovered<\/a> that using a Segregated Witness (Segwit) \u201cdiscount\u201d in combination with Taproot allows for a full block to be 4 MB in size, bypassing the 1 MB limit encoded in the Bitcoin blockchain. It was previously known that Segwit slightly increased block sizes, with the largest block before Luxor\u2019s 3.96 MB being 2.765 MB (#748,918<\/a>) mined on Aug. 11, 2022.<\/p>\n

Concerns Raised Over Immutable Nature of Bitcoin and So-Called \u2018Dangerous\u2019 Content<\/h2>\n

Meanwhile, Ordinals were already controversial<\/a> among some bitcoin maximalists, and the 4 MB block mined with only 63 transactions and a Wizard JPEG caused further upset. For instance, bitcoin developer Luke Dashjr, who called Ordinals an \u201cattack<\/a>,\u201d quickly created a node patch to filter or censor Ordinal \u201cspam.\u201d \u201cNOT a protocol change or soft fork\/hard fork, just a harmless (if it works right) spam filter,\u201d Dashjr wrote<\/a>. \u201cAlso a quick hack and NOT suitable for opening a PR to Core \u2013 please write a proper fix for that.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"
The record-breaking 3.96 MB Bitcoin block (#774,628) mined on Feb. 1, 2023.<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Many bitcoin advocates were dissatisfied with the record-breaking block size, and the topic was discussed<\/a> on the Reddit forum r\/bitcoin. The most upvoted comment<\/a> in the thread read: \u201cI would much rather see such a block full of real monetary transactions from thousands of people, instead of this idiocy.\u201d<\/p>\n

Another individual agreed with this opinion and argued<\/a> that the Taproot scheme that produced a 4 MB block was dangerous. \u201cYeah \u2026 This is rather dangerous. We\u2019re one bad actor or one automated miner away from cementing vile and disgusting things to a permanent, globally distributed, uncensorable database. It will be interesting to see if there is a free market solution to this.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

Someone has just uploaded DOOM to the BTC<\/a> blockchain.<\/p>\n

Go here to try it out:https:\/\/t.co\/DLuBYj06CS<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2014 Hector Lopez (@hlopez_) February 2, 2023<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In addition to the stir caused by the Wizard-block Ordinal, an unsavory image was inscribed into inscription #668<\/a>. Although the image was removed from the Ordinals website, it remains immutable and cannot be removed from the Bitcoin blockchain. Furthermore, a game, \u201cDOOM,\u201d was uploaded<\/a> to the blockchain and can be found in inscription #466.<\/p>\n

Some bitcoin advocates expressed dissatisfaction with the mining pool Luxor, which mined the 4 MB block. One person responded to Luxor\u2019s tweet, saying<\/a>, \u201cThere\u2019s nothing revolutionary in what you did. You stuffed a nasty JPEG with zero artistic value into the blockchain. Okay\u2026you could have crafted the same stupid image 10,000 times smaller. Why did you make it 4 MB? Because it\u2019s mischief; you are trolls.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n
\nTags in this story
\n<\/h6>\n
artistic value<\/a>, automated miner<\/a>, bad actor<\/a>, Bitcoin<\/a>, bitcoin maximalists<\/a>, Block Size<\/a>, Blockchain<\/a>, Censorship<\/a>, controversy<\/a>, Cryptocurrency<\/a>, dangerous<\/a>, Decentralized<\/a>, Developer<\/a>, Digital Art<\/a>, Digital Collectibles<\/a>, digital market<\/a>, digital ownership<\/a>, free market solution<\/a>, Hardfork<\/a>, idiocy<\/a>, immutable<\/a>, Innovation<\/a>, Luke Dashjr<\/a>, Luxor<\/a>, mining pool<\/a>, mischief<\/a>, monetary transactions<\/a>, nft<\/a>, node patch<\/a>, ordinals<\/a>, Ownership<\/a>, Privacy-preserving<\/a>, protocol change<\/a>, r\/bitcoin<\/a>, Reddit<\/a>, Scarcity<\/a>, Security<\/a>, Segragated Witness<\/a>, SegWit<\/a>, softfork<\/a>, Taproot<\/a>, transactions<\/a>, Transparency<\/a>, uncensorable database<\/a>, upvoted<\/a>, upvoted comment<\/a>, virtual assets<\/a>, wizard<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

What is your take on the 4 MB block controversy in the Bitcoin network? Do you believe it is a potential threat or a harmless addition to the blockchain? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

\n
\n\n<\/div>\n
\n
\nJamie Redman <\/h6>\n

\nJamie Redman is the News Lead at Bitcoin.com News and a financial tech journalist living in Florida. Redman has been an active member of the cryptocurrency community since 2011. He has a passion for Bitcoin, open-source code, and decentralized applications. Since September 2015, Redman has written more than 6,000 articles for Bitcoin.com News about the disruptive protocols emerging today.

\n
\n
\n<\/a>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Image Credits<\/b>: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons, Editorial photo credit: Ordinal inscription #652<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Disclaimer<\/strong>: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com<\/a> does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n