Why Bitcoin Developers Are Saying "No" to The Cat—And Why It Matters More Than You Think

Bitcoin is facing a rare moment of internal tension. A technical proposal nicknamed “The Cat” is forcing the community to confront a question that goes beyond code: What matters more—keeping Bitcoin operational long-term, or preserving absolute ownership rights forever? And why do so many developers insist Bitcoin should do neither?

The Problem Nobody Could Ignore

To understand why “The Cat” exists at all, you need to know about UTXO bloat.

Here’s the simple version: Every Bitcoin node must store a complete record of all unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs)—basically, all the coins that currently exist and could theoretically be spent. Every full node has to:

• Keep this entire list in memory
• Update it whenever transactions happen
• Verify each UTXO follows consensus rules

The bigger the UTXO set, the harder it is to run a node. Higher hardware demands mean fewer people can participate, which threatens Bitcoin’s core strength: decentralization.

Enter Ordinals and NFTs. These inscriptions create millions of tiny, often-never-touched UTXOs, purely to store data on the blockchain. Unlike normal coins that get spent and recycled, these data-heavy UTXOs sit there permanently, bloating the set that every node must maintain forever.

From a pure infrastructure perspective: this is a real problem. Left unchecked, Bitcoin could become progressively harder to run independently—not because of censorship, but because of hardware costs.

The Proposed Solution That Triggered a Firestorm

“The Cat” proposes something radical: Let the network identify certain UTXOs (specifically tiny ones created purely for data storage) and render them unspendable through a consensus rule change. Since they can no longer be spent, they’d be deleted from the UTXO set. Problem solved—nodes would have less to store.

On paper, it’s a cleanup mechanism. In reality, Bitcoin’s core developers saw it as a red line.

Why Developers Are Saying “Do Not The Cat”—The Real Fears

The opposition from Bitcoin Core developers isn’t about hating Ordinals or NFTs. It’s existential.

First concern: It establishes a precedent for asset confiscation.

For the first time in Bitcoin’s history, a valid UTXO created according to the rules could be invalidated later for “system reasons.” The network would essentially be saying: “Yes, we can take your coins if we decide it’s inconvenient.”

Even if the scope is tiny today, the principle breaks. Tomorrow, it might apply to “inactive” coins. Next year, coins deemed “policy-violating.” The boundary becomes blurred.

Second concern: This undermines Bitcoin’s core promise.

Bitcoin’s entire value proposition rests on one thing: If you control the private key, your coins are yours forever. No exceptions.

This isn’t just code—it’s social contract. It’s why people trust Bitcoin in countries with unreliable governments. It’s why institutions see Bitcoin as uncensorable. “The Cat” shakes that foundation, no matter how well-intentioned.

Third concern: Consensus changes are nearly impossible to reverse.

If “The Cat” is adopted and later abused or misclassified UTXOs, there’s no fixing it. You can’t restore deleted data. You can’t unbreak trust that easily. Bitcoin’s entire security model depends on extreme conservatism about changing the rules.

Fourth concern: The real problem isn’t solved anyway.

Even if data-carrying UTXOs are deleted, the data itself still exists on the blockchain forever. Users can create new forms of data storage. You’re not solving the root cause—just managing symptoms while sacrificing principles.

Many developers concluded: The risk isn’t worth the gain.

The Supporters’ Counterargument: Operability or Bust

But not everyone agrees that inaction is safer.

Supporters of “The Cat” acknowledge the philosophical risks but argue the other direction is also risky: If Bitcoin becomes too expensive to run, people will use centralized alternatives instead. That defeats the whole point.

Their argument:

• UTXO bloat is structural, not temporary
• If millions of data-heavy UTXOs continue accumulating, node costs will rise exponentially
• In 10-20 years, running a full node might require enterprise-grade hardware
• That centralization risk is just as dangerous as the rule-change risk

They also push back on the “asset confiscation” framing. Their view: Bitcoin should prioritize its original purpose (a decentralized monetary system), not be a data-storage platform. If Ordinals exploit the protocol to create technical inefficiencies, addressing that isn’t confiscation—it’s resource governance.

Even supporters, though, acknowledge “The Cat” is imperfect and require strict safeguards. Many frame it less as “this must be done” and more as “if we don’t confront this problem somehow, Bitcoin has a real long-term issue.”

The Deeper Pattern: Bitcoin’s Conservative Identity Under Pressure

What’s really happening is this: Bitcoin is maturing. When it was small, technical compromises were possible. Now, every consensus change touches property rights, and property rights debates are never simple.

The rejection of “The Cat” reveals something important about Bitcoin’s design philosophy: The community values trust more than efficiency.

That’s not accidental. It’s intentional. Bitcoin has historically chosen:

• Slower transactions over centralization
• Higher costs over compromise principles
• Technical limitation over governance flexibility

This conservatism is why Bitcoin has survived 15 years without a major crisis of confidence. It’s also why some critics say Bitcoin doesn’t “scale” as fast as alternatives. But here’s the thing: Bitcoin chose slow and trustworthy over fast and flexible.

What “The Cat” Actually Tells Us

If “The Cat” never gets adopted (and most observers think it won’t), it will have still served a purpose: forcing Bitcoin’s community to articulate where the red lines are.

The debate exposes a real tension:

• Technical sustainability vs. Absolute immutability
• Long-term operability vs. Inviolable ownership
• Resource management vs. Never invalidating valid assets

There’s no painless answer. Every choice has trade-offs.

But the overwhelming response from developers suggests Bitcoin’s community has decided: We’ll accept higher technical costs rather than compromise the principle that valid ownership can never be revoked.

In a world where many blockchains constantly change the rules for optimization, Bitcoin’s decision to tolerate inefficiency for the sake of trust is countercultural. It’s also, according to many, why Bitcoin remains the most credible censorship-resistant asset in existence.

“The Cat” isn’t really about Ordinals or UTXO management. It’s a stress test revealing that Bitcoin’s greatest strength—its conservatism about core principles—is also the feature most worth defending.

Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial, investment, legal, or professional advice. Conduct your own research and consult with professionals before making decisions.