The upcoming major upgrade of Bitcoin Core has reignited long-standing tensions within the community, bringing to the forefront a divide between developers advocating for a neutral, fee-focused network and purists who view non-financial data as mere spam.
Bitcoin Core v30, anticipated in October, will eliminate the 80-byte limit on OP_RETURN, the segment of a transaction script that permits users to embed arbitrary data.
Bitcoin Core serves as the software underpinning the Bitcoin network, maintained by an open group of developers and heavily relied upon by miners and node operators. While alternatives like Knots exist, Bitcoin Core remains the reference implementation for the protocol, utilized by the majority of the network.
At first glance, the disagreement resembles a policy debate regarding the reservation of Bitcoin’s blockchain for financial transactions versus opening it up for wider applications. However, this controversy also highlights deeper political divisions, with some groups accusing Bitcoin Core of compromising its principles or yielding to external pressures.
The conflict over Bitcoin’s purpose
Opponents of Bitcoin Core v30 express concerns that lifting the OP_RETURN cap could invite spam and cause resource drain. They argue that larger OP_RETURNs promote non-monetary transactions that overshadow payments and place additional demands on nodes.
Proponents of the money-centric philosophy view this as a misuse of the system, contending that Bitcoin should function as a peer-to-peer payment network rather than a data hosting platform.
This perspective is exemplified by Bitcoin Knots, an alternative client maintained by Luke Dashjr, which implements stricter default policies to avert what it deems non-financial data. Knots is constructed to complicate the relaying or embedding of arbitrary content.
Related: Bitcoin Knots gains traction: Will a chain split impact BTC price?
Core developers defend their stance for different reasons. Gloria Zhao, a Bitcoin Core maintainer, stated that supporters of the modification “aren’t keen on data storage as a use case” but advocate for a decentralized market for blockspace by not enforcing relay policies that are stricter than what miners currently accept.
“The existing standard methods (e.g. bare pubkeys) lead to bloating the UTXO set, which incurs long-term costs to the network,” she mentioned in a GitHub discussion, adding that OP_RETURN is prunable and less detrimental.
Supporters of Knots argue that raising the cap increases the risk of illicit materials being permanently inscribed on the blockchain. They point out the extreme scenario where child sexual abuse material (CSAM) could be recorded on Bitcoin if the cap is abolished.
Bitcoin developer and advocate Jimmy Song — who is not in favor of v30 — dismissed that concern, asserting that data added to Bitcoin is “not easily accessible.”
“Core version 30 does not display images or videos or play audio,” Song stated. “Utilizing software that checks whether a block or transaction complies with Bitcoin’s rules does not imply participation in any illicit activities associated with that transaction.”
The Bitcoin corporate capture discourse
In addition to the technical discussion, the v30 upgrade has ignited a political debate regarding the independence of Bitcoin Core.
Critics allege that Core developers are favoring initiatives like the layer-2 project Citrea, claiming that the removal of the OP_RETURN cap aligns perfectly with the requirements of rollups that rely on encoding larger data payloads into Bitcoin for validity proofs.
Others challenge the very notion of neutrality. They perceive the “fee-driven” approach as a mechanism to normalize non-financial transactions, paving the way for non-fungible tokens and inscriptions.
Related: Insights from an advanced Bitcoin class
Core developers refute these allegations, emphasizing that decisions are made transparently on GitHub, Internet Relay Chat, and mailing lists, dismissing claims of corporate capture as mere political maneuvers from the “money-focused” faction. They view v30 as an initiative to allow the transaction fee market to govern itself while maintaining Bitcoin’s rules as neutral and transparent.
“If a small, manipulable ‘inner circle’ truly dictated software decisions for the entire network, then Bitcoin would represent a precarious system,” Zhao remarked.
“I earnestly hope that if Bitcoin Core’s contributors ever abandon these principles — for instance, to cater to social media or corporate demands, the community will shift to another node implementation that performs better.”
Looking towards the October release of Bitcoin Core v30
The debate surrounding OP_RETURN transcends mere bytes and scripts. For its critics, it represents a struggle to maintain Bitcoin’s identity as sound money, free from the distractions of data experimentation. Meanwhile, for Core developers, it concerns aligning software rules with what the network currently accepts, leaving it to the blockspace market to self-regulate.
Whether the alteration prompts a surge of inscriptions or simply rectifies outdated relay regulations, the upgrade compels the community to revisit a discussion that has troubled Bitcoin since its inception.
As v30 nears its October launch, node operators, miners, and businesses will face the choice of whether to upgrade or hold steady. This decision, multiplied across thousands of machines globally, will not only impact the future of the OP_RETURN cap but also influence how Bitcoin defines its neutrality, independence, and overarching purpose.
The divide has led to a notable increase in Bitcoin Knots nodes. At the start of 2025, approximately 400 Bitcoin Knots nodes were operational on the Bitcoin network. That figure has now risen to 4,713 nodes. Currently, there are 22,496 public nodes on the Bitcoin network.
Magazine: Seven reasons why Bitcoin mining is a poor business strategy
