On July 28, 2010, users discovered that they could “steal” another’s Bitcoin by simply adding any script locked with OP_TRUE OP_RETURN. Since the OP_RETURN opcode stops script execution (like a return function in any programming language), it would return the previous value on the stack, OP_TRUE, which returns a true condition to spend the coins from anyone, regardless of their spending conditions.
This “bug” was quickly fixed by Satoshi Nakamoto, changing the functionality of OP_RETURN to immediately return false instead. However, given that Bitcoin does not operate outside the law and that miners would not realistically process transactions with this script even if it were technically possible, we can now wonder if it was simply a technical oversight.
Satoshi sadly stated that he thinks “few nodes will be big server farms”. Come to think of it, it involves large corporations that would not allow crime to happen with impunity under their watch. In addition, these large enterprise nodes would comply if they received orders to freeze or seize assets from the government. This communication capability was also implemented very early in Bitcoin through the alert system. BTC Core developers removed this feature in 2016.
Today, many in the digital currency space believe that seizing and freezing assets is technically impossible because the system is “decentralized” and it cannot be done due to its “simple mathematics”. The reality is that the creator had puzzle pieces in place to make this possible from the early stages of the network, but due to its immaturity, the later removal of these features allowed newcomers to control the narrative on Why they have been deleted. For example, regardless of Nakamoto’s intention, BTC Core gave its own subjective and interpretative reasons why the alert system should to be removed:
The original features were not scaled because nodes could be run on personal computers with little or no capital investment. Unlike large corporations that generate millions in revenue and must be registered legal entities, these home users cannot be trusted to follow court instructions or not to steal other people’s assets.
Craig Wright explains in March 2020:
Even if the OP_TRUE OP_RETURN bug were technically possible on Bitcoin today, nodes would likely reject these scripts as they would be essentially guilty of facilitating the crime. Therefore, a simple reimplementation of this “bug” from the original version of Bitcoin would implement the technology allowing miners to freeze and return assets despite “experts” claiming that it is impossible.
If the solution implemented does not make OP_TRUE OP_RETURN scripts possible, then another is an agreement by the nodes via a notarized contract. Nodes can now receive instructions from court orders to freeze assets or reallocate coins. This implementation by the Bitcoin Association echoes Wright’s sentiments in February 2022, doubling down on the concept that network consensus should be achieved outside of blockchain’s technical capabilities:
This concept reminds us that we live in the real world. Just because it’s technically possible to do something doesn’t mean it’s morally right or legal. Bitcoin cannot become money for the world if loss of possession leads to loss of ownership, contrary to any other asset in the world. It should also be noted that the original Bitcoin white paper states that nodes protect “ownership” not “possessions”.
After all, Joseph Vaughn-Perling said it was crucial for Bitcoin’s mass adoption in May 2016:
Watch: Bitcoin Digital Asset Recovery Explained
width=”562″ height=”315″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen=”allowfullscreen”>
New to Bitcoin? Discover CoinGeek bitcoin for beginners section, the ultimate resource guide to learn more about Bitcoin – as originally envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto – and blockchain.