Crackdown on Fake Satoshi (Sat20)!!! The underlying architecture of Bitcoin determines that its network is difficult to implement complex smart contracts and cannot support functions similar to Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM). Over the years, numerous tech giants have repeatedly attempted to implement smart contracts on Bitcoin, but have been unsuccessful, which is also the main reason why Vitalik Buterin developed Ethereum. The early attempts of the Bitcoin network to issue coins were colored coins (up to 400 at most), which embedded up to 80 bytes of metadata in transactions through OP-RETURN opcodes to record token ledger information. For example, Tether's USDT issued based on the Omni protocol is a typical application of colored coins. The OP-RETURN data does not affect the UTXO (Unspent Transaction Output) model of Bitcoin and is only stored as metadata on the blockchain. However, Bitcoin miners only verify the validity of transactions and are not responsible for the logical correctness of the OP-RETURN ledger. On a regular Bitcoin blockchain browser, USDT's assets and transfer information are not visible. USDT's assets and transfer information need to be viewed through a dedicated browser maintained by Tether. The operation of USDT relies on Tether's trust and is not related to Bitcoin's decentralized mechanism. Tether only uses the Bitcoin network for bookkeeping. At the beginning of 2023, the Ordinals protocol and BRC-20 emerged by assigning a unique Ordinal Number to each Satoshi and using SegWit's Witness Data to store inscriptions. The inscriptions are embedded in the OP_LALSE OP-IF... OP-ENDIF script of the Witness Data, which records token information in JSON format (such as the name and total amount of BRC-20). Like Omni, Ordinals ledger is essentially still a 'message', similar to OP-RETURN, relying on third-party tools such as Unisat and Ordinals Wallet for parsing and maintenance. Bitcoin miners only ensure that transactions are on chain and do not verify the logical correctness of the engraved ledger. The maintenance of the ledger relies on third-party nodes or services. If the service stops, Ordinals or BRC-20 assets may disappear. Although users can run full node traversal of blocks to reconstruct the ledger, this ledger lacks the native trust guarantee of Bitcoin UTXO and lacks accuracy and security. The second layer asset security has nothing to do with the decentralized nature of Bitcoin, it is purely a confusing concept! As for the Lightning Network, it is more centralized. Simply put, when playing mahjong, no money is given and only accounting is done. After the game is played, unified accounting is performed, which is very insecure. Essentially, it achieves fast transactions through off chain channels and regular on chain settlements. Participants record transaction status in the channel, similar to "bookkeeping," and ultimately settle through the Bitcoin main chain. The problem is that off chain transactions rely on the online status and honesty of the participants. If one party commits wrongdoing or goes offline, it may result in financial losses, and the ledger may not be available on the chain halfway. As for Sat20, which asked me to crack down on counterfeits, it's a case of changing the soup without changing the medicine. It uses an opcode (OP-CAT) in the Bitcoin scripting language to pop up the top two elements from the stack, connect them in order to form a new element, and push the connected elements back to the top of the stack. Utilize this combination capability for ledger management, thereby realizing the functionality of ETH. OP-CAT poses many potential risks to the BTC network, which was removed by Satoshi Nakamoto on August 15, 2010 (due to the potential risk of denial of service attacks (DoS)). In recent years, some communities in Bitcoin have proposed to re enable OP-CAT applications. The proposal with BIP number: OP-CAT was named BIP-347. In May 2024, OP-CAT was launched on the Bitcoin testnet Signet, allowing developers to test advanced applications on CatVM. No matter how the Sat20 community uses obscure technical terms to deceive, it cannot change the fact that it is centrally maintained. Bitcoin miners are not responsible for the ledger constructed by Sat20 based on connection codes. Simply put, it has nothing to do with Bitcoin, as its ledger relies on third-party parsing and has nothing to do with Bitcoin's native security. Claiming that OP-CAT can enable Bitcoin to achieve Ethereum functionality is an exaggeration and pure deception of the ignorant masses!