Bitcoin can be understood as a form of database.
This is an undeniable aspect of its technology. At its core, money functions as a ledger that keeps track of ownership. Even tangible cash serves to distribute this “database” in the physical realm. There’s no need to consult a central ledger for verification; simply handing over cash fulfills that role. The entries in this ledger circulate independently from any centralized record-keeping system. Bitcoin aims to create a digital version of this concept, replicating the key feature of physical cash: spending your funds without needing permission from any database operator.
Consider how futile it would be to try and prevent individuals from altering dollar bills. How many among you have stamped “Buy Bitcoin” on fiat currency? In the United States, defacing currency is considered a federal offense, punishable by up to six months in prison—yet does that deter anyone?
Do you genuinely believe such enforcement could work anywhere? Remember the initiative “Where Is George?” where people would stamp websites on dollar bills so others could enter serial numbers and track their geographical circulation.
Artists frequently create murals and collages on banknotes; it’s something you simply cannot stop.
Why then do some hold onto the illusion that controlling digital databases is feasible?
The very essence of Bitcoin necessitates accommodating arbitrary data (meaning data that’s impossible to predict or define beforehand) for user transactions. You can’t foresee how much you’ll send (the satoshi field), where it’ll go (the script field), or at what block height you’ll want it spent (the nLocktime or nSequence fields).
If these arbitrary data elements weren’t allowed, Bitcoin couldn’t function as intended.
Metaprotocols
A metaprotocol within Bitcoin refers to an additional layer built atop its foundational protocol which interprets actions and data through supplementary rules absent from the base protocol itself.
An illustrative example is Counterparty (XCP). By utilizing OP_RETURN—a command in Bitcoin’s scripting language designed solely for pushing arbitrary data into an unspendable output ignored by UTXO sets—XCP embeds messages pertinent to its own metaprotocol.
This messaging facilitates new token issuance, defines token transfers by specifying amounts and destinations, along with other communications enabling trustless exchanges between XCP tokens and those issued via its protocol.
The core Bitcoin protocol neither comprehends nor cares about these messages; they are processed by additional software layered above it. Users can craft entirely invalid XCP messages confirmed on-chain but will find them disregarded by XCP software as invalid transactions instead—essentially wasting their resources creating meaningless entries.
No one can halt individuals from interpreting valid information on Bitcoin through external rules applied beyond what’s defined within the original protocol framework like this.
Data Embedding
The distinction between these two metaprotocols lies in one requiring extra data embedded directly onto the blockchain for functionality (XCP) while Ordinals operate without such requirements. You might assume it’s possible merely to obstruct protocols demanding embedded extra information by preventing said embedding outright initially.