There has been a recent surge in support for the revival of Bitcoin’s (BTC) Operation Concatenate (OP_CAT), a feature initially introduced by Satoshi Nakamoto in the original Bitcoin script. This code allowed users to merge two sets of data into a single transaction script. However, due to potential security risks stemming from excessively large stack elements, Nakamoto disabled OP_CAT in 2010.
The reintroduction of OP_CAT could potentially facilitate asset tokenization, building upon the success of Ordinals. By adding this proposed opcode, manipulating asset metadata and advanced data structures within transaction scripts could be streamlined. Nevertheless, a rushed implementation of OP_CAT could jeopardize Bitcoin’s position as the most secure blockchain.
The Rising Popularity of OP_CAT and Ordinals
To grasp why Ordinals and OP_CAT are gaining traction, one must delve into Bitcoin’s history with tokenization and nonfungible tokens (NFTs). Before Ethereum (ETH) and CryptoKitties took the spotlight, NFTs made their debut on Bitcoin through metaprotocols like Colored Coins. Proposed by Yoni Assia in 2012, Colored Coins utilized small fractions of Bitcoin (satoshis) to represent real-world assets, albeit with limited success. Another attempt in this direction was Counterparty, which created the “Rare Pepe Nakamoto” in 2016. However, these early NFT endeavors were hindered by Bitcoin’s limitations in terms of speed, scalability, and transaction costs.
Fast forward more than a decade, enthusiastic Bitcoin supporters are keen on reintroducing NFTs to the platform. Ordinals proponents are leveraging the OP_RETURN output to embed arbitrary data into Bitcoin transactions. This circumvents the 80-byte limit by distributing data across multiple outputs. While some applaud this technical workaround, others view it as spam polluting the secure Bitcoin network.
For instance, groups like Ocean Mining are actively working to eliminate Ordinals data, considering it a form of a Denial of Service (DoS) attack. In a December 2023 tweet, Ocean Mining’s CTO Luke Dash highlighted that Bitcoin Core has allowed users to set a limit on the size of additional data in transactions since 2013. He pointed out that Inscriptions bypass this limit by disguising data as program code, a loophole that was recently addressed in Bitcoin Knots v25.1.
In response to a user suggesting that Ordinals were “allowed” on Bitcoin, Dash emphasized, “Nobody ever allowed ordinals. It’s been an attack on Bitcoin from the start.” Given his role as a Bitcoin Core developer, his perspective carries weight.
It is worth noting that Ocean Mining, previously known as Eligius, has discovered over 11,000 blocks and mined nearly 350,000 Bitcoins. Several hundred node operators align with Ocean’s stance and have chosen to filter out the “spam” generated by Ordinals inscriptions.
OP_CAT Versus Bitcoin Purists
The future of Bitcoin NFTs in 2024 appears uncertain. Not only are Ordinals facing resistance from node operators filtering out their inscriptions, but they are also grappling with the same challenges that plagued metaprotocols before them: network congestion and high fees on a low Transactions Per Second (TPS) protocol. With multiple hurdles in their path, how will Bitcoin address the growing demand for secure and scalable tokenization/NFTs? Will Ordinals be consigned to oblivion in Bitcoin’s history, much like Colored Coins?
The focus has now shifted to introducing OP_CAT into the Bitcoin protocol to overcome base layer limitations. StarkWare recently announced a $1 million fund dedicated to researching OP_CAT and its potential to drive Bitcoin adoption. Enthusiasts are excited about the possibilities it opens up, such as secure document signing and vaults.
However, the same security concerns that led to OP_CAT’s deactivation in 2010 are now prompting developers to tread cautiously in concluding discussions on OP_CAT’s BIP 420. This dilemma has sparked debates within the community about the validity and future of Ordinals. Like many innovations, internal communities may sometimes diverge from mainstream signals of demand.
The introduction of OP_CAT could simplify asset tokenization on Bitcoin. Nonetheless, this change necessitates a soft fork, and any backward-compatible update to the Bitcoin protocol, including OP_CAT, poses potential security risks. Rushed adoption without integrating additional opcodes could also limit its functionality.
Security Takes Precedence
Bitcoin’s legacy as a secure protocol confronts an existential threat with hasty adoption of OP_CAT. Missing posters for OP “CATs” and #BIP420 appearing in bios indicate a clear demand for tokenization and NFTs. Instead of rushing into changes that compromise Bitcoin’s base layer security and functionality, efforts should be directed towards layer-2 solutions that uphold its integrity.
Hastily embracing protocol changes under pressure risks undermining Bitcoin’s core values. The community, not just the loudest voices, must safeguard its future. The resilience of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology hinges on Bitcoin’s unblemished security record. Why rush to fix something that isn’t fundamentally broken?
Afnan Rahman, the co-founder and CEO of AYCE & Co, previously co-founded OpenNode and contributed to building the Bitcoin wallet Zap (Strike). He holds a degree from UC Santa Barbara.
This article serves as general information and should not be construed as legal or investment advice. The opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Cointelegraph.