As 2024 was entering its third day, a tweet from BRC-20 founder @domodata stirred significant discussion, bringing the BRC-20 fork debate to the forefront.

In this tweet, domo made serious allegations against UniSat. Domo claimed that UniSat’s action of upgrading the Ordinals protocol used by BRC-20 to version 0.13.0 constituted a “fork” of BRC-20. This was described as a unilateral technical move by UniSat and a struggle for control over the protocol.

To quickly understand this “fork” dispute, consider this analogy: we all hold the same asset (BRC-20 Token), and previously, whether we stored or traded them at UniSat, Magic Eden, OKX, or elsewhere, there were no issues because all these platforms used the same accounting system. Now, UniSat wants to upgrade this system. If other platforms do not adopt this upgrade, differences in the system’s rules could emerge, leading to discrepancies in the recorded results (the balance of BRC-20 Tokens) across different platforms, potentially causing chaos.

Why has this divergence occurred? What are the attitudes of various stakeholders continuing to develop the BRC-20 protocol towards this divergence? And what potential impacts could this divergence lead to?

Why does this disagreement occur?

The divergence arose following a significant development in the BRC-20 protocol. On November 9, 2023, with the production of the Bitcoin block at height 816000, the BRC-20 Index Specification “Freeze” Proposal officially took effect.

This “Freeze” Proposal, submitted by BRC-20 protocol founder domo on October 26, 2023, aimed to standardize (preserve) the BRC-20 index at version 0.9.0 to maintain indexing stability.

In October 2023, it was discovered that inscriptions #35321413 and #35329860 could be indexed by the Ordinals protocol version 0.9.0 but not by versions 0.7.0 and 0.8.0. Due to different markets adopting different versions of the Ordinals protocol, some inscriptions were incorrectly indexed in certain markets, leading to factual shifts in inscription numbers.

For BRC-20, the implications were even more significant. A bug in the version 0.8.0 Ordinals protocol could allow for the creation of tokens beyond the maximum supply, and differences in the Ordinals protocol versions across various markets posed a substantial risk of double-spending. This was why Magic Eden temporarily suspended BRC-20 trading in November 2023—there was no fault on their part, but the version they used happened to be problematic, and suspending trading was a responsible action for their users.

BRC-20 is a protocol “parasitic” on the Ordinals protocol, and whether its indexing should follow upgrades of the Ordinals protocol is a dilemma at this stage. On one hand, the Ordinals protocol is rapidly updating with more new features being added, especially with the upcoming “Jubilee” upgrade set to activate at block height 824544. This upgrade will fix the method of generating cursed inscriptions, meaning that cursed inscriptions given negative numbers in the v 0.9.0 Ordinals protocol will be assigned positive numbers in the v 0.13.0 version. The version differences in the Ordinals protocol will significantly alter the numbering of new inscriptions. Moreover, modified versions of the BRC-20 protocol, like CBRC-20, which utilize new features from newer versions of the Ordinals protocol for performance optimization, also pose challenges to the development of BRC-20. (Recommended Reading: The Modified Version of BRC-20, Detailed Explanation of CBRC-20 FOMO by Foreigners)

On the other hand, as a protocol with numerous assets and significant market value, maintaining stability in BRC-20’s development is naturally a top priority. Pursuing new features for optimization and expansion at the expense of user asset loss would undoubtedly cause significant damage to the BRC-20 ecosystem.

Regarding this issue, stakeholders with a say in the BRC-20 protocol have diverged in their views, leading to the current “fork” dispute. The crux of this “fork” dispute is whether to upgrade the Ordinals version running the BRC-20 index from v 0.9.0.

Attitudes Towards the “Fork”

Disapproval: Led by domo and Best in Slot of the Layer 1 Foundation

As mentioned at the beginning of this article, domo’s stance is already known. Best in Slot, in a tweet yesterday, claimed to have found a “serious vulnerability” in the Ordinals protocol version 0.13.1, which affects the accuracy of BRC-20 balances. They strongly urged that the BRC-20 index maintain the protocol at version 0.9.0 to ensure stability. In the tweet, Best in Slot also noted that other bugs likely exist in version 0.13.1 that could affect the BRC-20 protocol, emphasizing that “stability” is the top priority for the already massive BRC-20 protocol, which cannot withstand continuous, untested upgrades.

Approval: UniSat

UniSat has always been keen on rapidly promoting the development related to BRC-20. From the development of BRC-20 Swap features to advocating for the upgrade of the Ordinals protocol version running the BRC-20 index. Following domo’s tweet, UniSat also responded, stating they would suspend other development tasks to ensure the timely upgrade of BRC-20. Additionally, UniSat emphasized their commitment to preventing a “split” in BRC-20.

Moreover, reports suggest that Magic Eden favors the upgrade of BRC-20.

Neutral: TRAC

Benny, the founder of TRAC, maintains a neutral stance on this divergence. He believes that keeping the Ordinals protocol version at v 0.9.0 indefinitely is not right, but thorough testing for weeks or even months is necessary before upgrading to ensure everything functions correctly with the new version.

Potential Impacts

UniSat described the disagreement as a “split,” not a “fork.” UniSat points out that a “fork” signifies a physical divergence based on consensus differences, such as BCH and BTC, which resulted in two separate chains developing independently based on their respective consensuses. In contrast, the upgrade dispute of BRC-20 could lead to a scenario where one BRC-20 protocol runs two sets of different rules on the same chain (Bitcoin mainnet), still affecting each other.

The “split” controversy over BRC-20 casts a shadow over the currently cooling inscription market. However, there is no need for excessive worry, as no party truly wishes to harm BRC-20. The disagreement over how to better develop BRC-20 is a positive sign and a necessary test in its development. It is believed that all parties will engage in proper discussions, reaching a consensus that everyone accepts, and from this event, develop a good dialogue mechanism. After the storm, the future of BRC-20 will surely be brighter.

Disclaimer：

1. This article is reprinted from [theblockbeats]. All copyrights belong to the original author [Cookie]. If there are objections to this reprint, please contact the Gate Learn team, and they will handle it promptly.
2. Liability Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not constitute any investment advice.
3. Translations of the article into other languages are done by the Gate Learn team. Unless mentioned, copying, distributing, or plagiarizing the translated articles is prohibited.