Blockstream CEO Adam Back has warned that storing images on Bitcoin — so-called “JPEG inscriptions” or “JPEG spam” — risks undermining the network’s core function as a peer-to-peer money system. In a thread on X, Back said developers should act as stewards and that material protocol changes need broad user consent rather than being pushed by miners or other actors.
Back’s concern traces to the Taproot upgrade and the Ordinals protocol that enabled embedding arbitrary data, including images, directly in Bitcoin transactions. Supporters argue Bitcoin is permissionless: if users pay for block space, the network should accept the data they post. Back counters with a historical reminder of the 2015–2017 block-size wars, when user-led economic pressure checked attempts to force protocol changes.
The scale of the phenomenon is notable. According to Back, embedded images rose from 88 million in May to 105 million in September — roughly a 20% increase — and fees tied to these inscriptions total about 7,000 BTC (≈ $777 million). While that sum sounds significant, Back estimates the net boost to miner profits is tiny once increased hashrate and operating costs are taken into account: on his figures, JPEG inscriptions may add only about 0.1% to mining profitability.
That small direct economic upside, he argues, may not justify the trade-offs: higher average transaction costs for ordinary users, potential reputational damage to Bitcoin as money, and reduced accessibility for everyday payments. Proponents reply that higher fees strengthen miner incentives to secure the chain as block rewards decline, and that forbidding inscriptions would violate Bitcoin’s permissionless ethos.
Back floated non-protocol remedies: outreach to miners and mining pools to discourage processing image-heavy transactions and wallet-level changes that steer fee flow away from miners who accept them. He acknowledged centralization risks if miner behavior becomes coordinated but suggested small economic nudges might make inscription mining unattractive.
Why it matters: this debate is about Bitcoin’s identity — utility as money versus a broader data layer — and it affects transaction costs, miner economics and long-term governance. Watch miner behavior and wallet defaults for early signals of which direction the network will take.
Source: CoinDesk. Read the original coverage for full details.
