According to Foresight News, SlowMist Technology founder Yu Xiang recently expressed his opinion on social media that fixing the Bitcoin Core vulnerability mentioned by Bitcoin core developer Luke Dashjr is unnecessary. Yu Xiang stated that the introduction of Taproot has not only brought a bunch of spam but also increased activity in the Bitcoin ecosystem. He believes that the ecosystem is not just about serial numbers and inscriptions, and if a compatible solution can be found to better open up the Bitcoin ecosystem, it would be better to endure short-term pain rather than long-term suffering.

We are excited to announce the launch of the#FLASHtoken on March 22!
📅 Stay tuned for our IDOs on ChainGPT Pad, our premium partner launchpad. This is just the beginning of our journey to unlock Bitcoin's full potential. 🚀
Well, what?
🎉 $FLASH is your gateway to the largest #Bitcoin-native#NFTplatform leveraging GameFi, AI, and Meme culture, all powered by Taproot. 💡🎮
🔒 With over 1 million Taproot NFTs already minted,#FlashProtocolis pioneering secure, decentralized digital asset issuance and trading on Bitcoin. Experience unmatched security with our threshold signature mechanism that ensures your assets are protected against hacking and malfunctions. 🔐

Will #Ordinals be dead by 2024?In a recent revelation, #BitcoinCore developer Luke Dashjr brought attention to the exploitation of a vulnerability within Bitcoin Core through the Introduction of “Inscriptions.” Dashjr shared on Twitter that this vulnerability is being used to spam the blockchain.While several projects such as OnChain Monkey, Ordinal Punks, and #Taproot Wizards have introduced the Inscriptions model on the Bitcoin blockchain, the developer called out Ordinals as a major player in the ecosystem that will be dead if the next Bitcoin improvement, v27, is executed next year.Bitcoin #Ordinals on #Bitcoin   -Bitcoin Ordinals is a protocol that allows individual satoshis (the smallest denomination of Bitcoin) to be assigned a unique identifier and additional data, a process known as inscribing. Each satoshi is given a serial number based on the order in which it was mined, and this number is called an ordinal. The inscribed data can include images, videos, text, or other content, effectively creating unique and scarce digital assets on the Bitcoin blockchain, similar to non-fungible tokens (NFTs). The protocol was introduced in January 2023 and has generated both interest and controversy within the crypto community. The introduction of Bitcoin Ordinals has generated both excitement and criticism within the cryptocurrency community. Critics argue that Ordinals can negatively impact Bitcoin’s network capacity and scalability, as they require additional data storage and processing.The large amount of data associated with Ordinal inscriptions and the increased demand for block space can lead to higher fees and congestion on the network. Additionally, others contend that Ordinals are a misuse of the Bitcoin network and a waste of its scarce resources, as they require additional storage and processing power.Bitcoin   Vulnerability -According to Dashjr, the vulnerability involves exploiting a feature in #BitcoinCore that has been present since 2013. This feature allows users to set a limit on the size of extra data in transactions they relay or mine, known as -datacarriersize. Inscriptions, however, manage to bypass this limit by disguising their data as program code.He highlighted that this bug has already been addressed in Bitcoin Knots v25.1, although it took longer to resolve due to disruptions in his workflow towards the end of the previous year. Despite the fix in Bitcoin Knots, the upcoming v26 release of Bitcoin Core remains vulnerable. The Bitcoin Core developer expressed hope that a final solution will be implemented before the release of v27 next year. #BitcoinCore 'Firing' All Miners With #PoW Algo Change: Feisty Exchanges Mark Growing DivideOver the last ten years, Luke Dashjr has emerged as a key player in the realm of Bitcoin development and the network’s open-source software. His opposition to specific trends within the Bitcoin ecosystem has gained more attention lately.He has labeled Ordinal inscriptions and non-fungible tokens (NFTs) on the Bitcoin platform as detrimental to the protocol and akin to spam, which he believes has been curtailed since 2014.Just this week, he suggested that Antpool might be employing “covert” ASIC Boost techniques. Subsequently, he informed individuals that the Bitcoin community has the power to fire all miners “by changing to a different PoW algorithm.”Luke Dashjr Talks Ousting Miners and Covert ASIC Boost Use-In recent weeks, Luke Dashjr, a prominent #BitcoinCore contributor and the brain behind Bitcoin Knots, has been particularly vocal. He re-entered the spotlight when his operated pool, Ocean Mining pool, confirmed it was filtering specific transactions, including Ordinal inscriptions, BRC20 Tokens and Coin join related transfers.On Dec. 17, in a conversation about simply using a .sats domain on an X profile among #Ordinals enthusiasts, Dashjr remarked, “Hopefully enough of you scammers will be in jail by ’26 so we never have to worry about you again.”An individual, surprised by Dashjr’s comment, asked him, “Wow. Okay. I have never talked to you before nor done you any harm. What’s your problem?”To this, Dashjr bluntly responded,“Scamming in the name of Bitcoin literally harms everyone on the planet.”In a separate dialogue on Sunday, Dashjr engaged with Adam Back, after Back asserted that stopping Ordinals was futile, as “you can’t stop JPEGs on bitcoin.”Dashjr elaborated on his stance in Back’s X thread with others.Discussing this with an X user named Bobby.sats, Dashjr explained, “It’s inevitable that bad actors will bribe miners to attack Bitcoin. If they actively do so, it becomes time to fire the miners. But step 1 is to fix the bug so they can do the right thing.”When Bobby inquired how one could ‘fire a miner,’ Dashjr clarified:-​​You can’t fire a single miner, but if a majority are attacking, the community can fire them all together by changing to a different PoW algorithm, making their mining hardware all useless.Dashjr also ventured a theory on X (formerly known as Twitter) regarding the mining operation Antpool.“My theory on Antpool’s abnormally-high rate of empty blocks,”Dashjr theorized,“These blocks are probably found using some old ASICs which only supported covert [ASIC Boost] (ie, not overt which is common today). Covert [ASIC Boost] is incompatible with Segwit. This was a major reason Bitmain tried to prevent Segwit in 2017. Bitcoin Core and Knots 0.18, however, removed support for creating non-Segwit block templates in 2019. So the only way to do so post-Taproot, is to make an entirely empty block.”He added a disclaimer to his post, noting,“This is only one possibility, not a confirmed fact,”and encouraged people to contemplate such scenarios.Dashjr’s comments have attracted mockery on X, with #Taproot Wizard founder Udi Wertheimer sharing screenshots of his statements.“Cat-eater [Luke Dashjr] actually believes that if bitcoin miners don’t censor inscriptions for him, he’ll just change the proof of work algorithm and put them out of his business … he’s deranged,” Wertheimer commented.Wertheimer also criticized software developer Peter Todd for discussing $RUNE assets’ alleged fraudulent use of other coin names & suggesting the RUNE Protocol is “_designed_ for fraud.”​​DISCLAIMER - The debate over Ordinals on Bitcoin has intensified in the past two months, igniting a spectrum of opinions among community members. Some participants, displaying heightened fervor, vehemently oppose these developments, while others advocate for them, underlining the growing divide.Always #DYOR before investing in Crypto Currency, B'coz it's NFA 🙏

On October 10, 2024, Craig Wright, the self-proclaimed inventor of #Bitcoin , filed a substantial £911 billion claim against Bitcoin Core developers, accusing them of misrepresenting Bitcoin ($BTC ) as the original cryptocurrency. Wright, who has repeatedly claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto—the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin—alleges that modifications to BTC, such as #SegWit and #Taproot , deviate from the original Bitcoin White Paper and thus distort public understanding of Bitcoin.
The Lawsuit Details
According to the claim form submitted by Wright, which lists his address in London, he is suing BTC Core, a partnership that manages the development of Bitcoin's codebase, and Square Up Europe Ltd, a subsidiary of Jack Dorsey’s Square. Wright asserts that the defendants' actions have "misled the public into believing that BTC retains the attributes of the original Bitcoin," resulting in significant reputational and financial damage to Bitcoin SV (BSV), a fork of Bitcoin that Wright supports and claims is the "true" Bitcoin.
Wright’s claim is staggering—he estimates the damages at £911,050,000,000 (roughly $1.1 trillion USD), citing the valuation disparity between BTC and BSV as the basis for the figure. BTC is currently valued at approximately £48,000 per unit, while BSV stands at a much lower £50 per unit. This vast difference, according to Wright, is a direct result of BTC Core’s misrepresentation, which he believes caused a loss of market value and reputational harm to BSV.
Wright's Contentious History
Craig Wright's legal actions are not new, and his claims of being Satoshi Nakamoto have faced significant scrutiny. In a notable case in 2021, Wright sued the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) over his claim to Bitcoin’s intellectual property but lost when the court ruled that Wright had not provided sufficient evidence to prove his identity as Bitcoin’s creator. Additionally, he has been embroiled in a legal battle with the estate of his former business partner, Dave Kleiman, over a large trove of Bitcoin that Wright claims ownership of.
Wright’s reputation within the cryptocurrency community has been severely tarnished by these legal disputes. Many in the industry, including prominent developers and analysts, consider his claims to be fraudulent. As one post put it, "Craig Wright is not only a fraud but surely an embarrassment to his family at this point."
Implications for Bitcoin
Wright’s latest lawsuit brings up key questions about Bitcoin’s governance and the open-source nature of its codebase. SegWit (Segregated Witness) and Taproot, two key updates to Bitcoin’s protocol, were designed to enhance transaction efficiency and privacy, respectively. These modifications have been broadly accepted within the Bitcoin community and are viewed as natural evolutions of the technology. However, Wright contends that these updates deviate from the original vision laid out in the Bitcoin White Paper, thereby misrepresenting what Bitcoin is supposed to be.
While Wright’s claims have not gained much traction legally or within the broader crypto community, they reignite debates over what constitutes the "true" version of Bitcoin. Wright argues that BSV, which he leads, adheres more closely to Satoshi Nakamoto’s original vision of a peer-to-peer electronic cash system and that BTC has strayed too far from that vision by implementing these updates. This debate has previously fueled splits within the Bitcoin community, leading to the creation of different forks like Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Bitcoin SV (BSV).
Skepticism and Public Reaction
The public and the cryptocurrency community have largely responded with skepticism to Wright’s claims. Some voices acknowledge that BTC, in its current form, does differ in some ways from the original Bitcoin White Paper. As one post remarked, "BTC has very little of the original Bitcoin code... If you compare BSV and BTC code to Satoshi's release, it is very clear BSV represents Bitcoin most accurately."
However, the dominant sentiment remains that Wright’s lawsuit is yet another attempt to assert himself as the rightful creator of Bitcoin without the backing of solid evidence. One commentator noted, "Craig Wright suing BTC Core for £911 Billion is nothing more than another spectacle in his long-running saga of questionable lawsuits."
Broader Market Implications
The magnitude of Wright's lawsuit, if taken seriously by the courts, could potentially have far-reaching consequences for the cryptocurrency market. A ruling in favor of Wright could not only shift market dynamics between BTC and BSV but also introduce new legal standards for the governance of open-source software projects like Bitcoin. Such an outcome, however, is seen as highly unlikely given Wright’s history of unsubstantiated claims and legal defeats.
Legal Representation and Self-Representation
One noteworthy aspect of the lawsuit is that Wright is acting as a "litigant-in-person," meaning he is representing himself without legal counsel. This decision might reflect his ongoing difficulties in securing legal representation after previous losses, or it may signal his confidence in navigating this lawsuit on his own. In either case, it adds another layer of intrigue to this already complex and controversial legal battle.
Final Thoughts
While the lawsuit may reignite public debates on Bitcoin’s identity and governance, it seems unlikely that Craig Wright’s claim will have the legal standing necessary to succeed. As history has shown, Wright’s previous attempts to prove his claim as #SatoshiNakamoto have been consistently challenged and ultimately dismissed. Nevertheless, the cryptocurrency world will continue to watch this case unfold, as its outcome—however improbable—could introduce new dynamics in the evolving story of Bitcoin.
For now, #BitcoinCore remains widely recognized as the legitimate version of Bitcoin, and BSV continues to occupy a much smaller space within the cryptocurrency ecosystem. Wright’s lawsuit may generate headlines, but it seems poised to be another chapter in his long and contentious saga with Bitcoin and its community.