Armin Sabouri put a dent in the hype surrounding the script, even though he authored the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal.<\/p>\n
As builders continue to test out the Satoshi-era opcode, prominent Bitcoin community members say the code, known as OP_CAT, has verbose scripting language that may add risk to the oldest blockchain.<\/p>\n
Even one of the authors behind the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal to add OP_CAT says the code is only part of what the network needs.<\/p>\n
\u201cCAT\u201d offers the opportunity to build really powerful features in Bitcoin \u201cin the least invasive way,\u201d but it\u2019s still limited, Armin Sabouri<\/a>, CTO of Bitcoin Layer 2 Botanix Labs, said in an interview.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019d be in favor of activated CAT plus something else,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n His voice dampens some of the hype surrounding OP_CAT, even though builders continue to experiment with the still-defunct code.<\/p>\n Sabouri co-authored BIP 347<\/a>, which seeks to activate OP_CAT into the Bitcoin network after Satoshi removed it back in 2011.<\/p>\n The more critical perspective for the upgrade comes as the code slowly makes its way through the Bitcoin ecosystem. Ordinal’s wallet Xverse revealed<\/a> on June 12 that it\u2019s expanding support for Bitcoin\u2019s Signet testnet, which will enable testing experimental features, including OP_CAT. <\/p>\n Meanwhile, one of Ethereum\u2019s main scaling solutions, StarkWare, is also putting its chips<\/a> in OP_CAT as it plans to help scale Bitcoin.<\/p>\n \u201cOP_CAT is good for everyone,\u201d Bob Bodily<\/a>, CEO of Bioniq, a Bitcoin Ordinals<\/a> marketplace, said in an interview. But, he added, it has a \u201csuper verbose way of writing script,\u201d which might frighten byte-conscientious developers.<\/p>\n That said, concerns about attack vectors \u2013which Satoshi voiced back in 2011\u2013 may be overstated, while it would allow for Bitcoin to scale up to 40 multiples its current capacity, according to Bodily.<\/p>\n In 2019, one of the authors behind the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal that aims to add \u201cCAT\u201d to Bitcoin, Ethan Heilman, put out a request for Bitcoiners to find a new attack vector which might surface if OP_CAT was activated.<\/p>\n \u201cNobody stepped up,\u201d Bodily claimed.<\/p>\n Bodily reckons it\u2019s the best option for Bitcoin<\/a> at the moment, as it will offer the network more expressiveness and enable more use-cases.<\/p>\n Another concern surrounding OP_CAT is the potential for MEV.<\/p>\n Maximal extractable value (MEV<\/a>) is the maximum profit that blockchain miners and validators can make by including, excluding, and changing the order of transactions in a block. It has been at the center of several discussions in large networks like Ethereum<\/a>, the latest linked to a $25 million dollar heist orchestrated by two brothers who gamed<\/a> the system.<\/p>\n Matt Corrallo, a Bitcoin core contributor said in an April 16 post<\/a> that systems that have arbitrarily expressible smart contracts are likely to have the potential for advanced MEV extraction similar to what we see on Ethereum today.<\/p>\n But Bodily said \u201cmost of that MEV might head to Layer 2s,\u201d which would spare users on the main chain from dealing with the threat.<\/p>\n OP_CAT<\/a>, short for \u201cOperation Concatenate,\u201d is an opcode that was initially proposed by Bitcoin\u2019s creator, Satoshi Nakamoto. The opcode allows for the combination of two pieces of data into a single piece of data during the execution of a Bitcoin transaction.<\/p>\n Essentially, OP_CAT enables specific features that can limit or expand how bitcoin can be transacted in the future. Use-cases include secure vaults that would allow reversible transactions, automated recurring payments, or time-locked transfers for inheritance schemes.<\/p>\n But Satoshi Nakamoto removed OP_CAT in 2011, citing concerns that it would expose the network to security issues, such as denial-of-service (DoS) attacks if used in conjunction with other similar scripts.<\/p>\n Detractors to activating OP_CAT have argued that Bitcoin\u2019s creator removed the script for a reason, which the developer community is now ignoring.<\/p>\n Shinobi, the pseudonymous technical editor for Bitcoin Magazine, wrote on X<\/a> on March 14 that the \u201cIf we don\u2019t know the limits of what this can do or the potential effects it could have, adding it into Bitcoin sounds like a horrible idea, imo.\u201d<\/p>\n In addition to Corrallo, Shinobi, and other detractors, is the laser-eyed Bitcoin maximalist camp. That intransigent minority has also been tagged as \u201cossifiers,\u201d or believers that the network has achieved what it\u2019s meant for\u2013neutral money\u2013and we should leave it at that.<\/p>\n Sabouri pushes back against the argument.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen Satoshi deactivated CAT it already had a fix in it,\u201d he said, and underscored a dangerous undercurrent with the idea. \u201cWe adopt a weird cultish behavior if we avoid the script just because Satoshi canceled it,\u201d Sabouri said, adding that, \u201cwe likely understand Bitcoin now better than they did back then.\u201d<\/p>\n OP_CAT is currently being tested in Signet, Bitcoin\u2019s testnet which allows for validation signatures. And depending on who you ask, the chances for activation are either extremely low or a certainty.<\/p>\n Bodily said that Udi Wertheimer, a Bitcoin influencer who is in favor of the network adding OP_CAT places the chances at 100% for it to happen this year. Udi has been at the forefront of the so-called Bitcoin Season 2, which aims to add all sorts of features to a network he claims has been left behind.<\/p>\n On the other hand, renowned Bitcoin developer Jeremy Rubin, and author of another BIP\u2013which would implement Covenants\u2013 thinks that the chances are 3% every year for the foreseeable future.<\/p>\n Sabouri, who told The Defiant that he isn\u2019t going to be one of the developers activating the opcode, stands somewhere in the middle.<\/p>\n Even the number attributed to OP_CAT\u2019s BIP has been controversial. Although the official number is 347, people in the Taproot Wizards community are calling it 420.<\/p>\n \u201cWe like to say BIP 420 is a community assigned BIP number,\u201d said Head of Product for Taproot Wizards Tyler Whittle<\/a>, who is also the creator of the interactive BIP Land map which helps to better understand the road from proposal to activation in the Bitcoin ecosystem.<\/p>\n Whittle said in an interview even the BIP numbering process is another sign of gatekeeping by a select group of individuals.<\/p>\n \u201cFor a long time the only person who could assign BIP numbers was Luke Dash Jr. (one of Bitcoin\u2019s core contributors), and he wasn’t giving OP_CAT one for no apparent reason,\u201d Whittle said.<\/p>\n Next steps for OP_CAT is continued testing in Bitcoin\u2019s Signet, while developers try to find any existential threat vectors that might arise from activating the opcode into Bitcoin Core.<\/p>\nExpanding Support<\/h2>\n
Attack Vectors<\/h2>\n
Potential For MEV<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Satoshi-era Code<\/strong><\/h2>\n
“Cultish Behavior”<\/h2>\n
Chances For Activation <\/strong><\/h2>\n
A Contentious BIP Number<\/strong><\/h2>\n