According to Cointelegraph, the decision by Bitcoin Core developers to remove the OP_Return limit for non-monetary data in the upcoming Bitcoin Core 30 upgrade has sparked significant controversy within the Bitcoin community. Jimmy Song, a prominent Bitcoin developer and advocate, criticized this move, labeling it as a "fiat" mentality. Song accused the developers of dismissing user concerns and ignoring substantial opposition from the community and node operators. He argued that the ambiguity surrounding the definition of spam is being used as a stalling tactic to avoid addressing the real impact of the change, particularly its long-term consequences.
The proposal to eliminate the OP_Return limit, which is currently set at 80 bytes, has been met with widespread disapproval. Despite this, the change is proceeding, reminiscent of the Bitcoin block size debates from 2015 to 2017 that led to the creation of Bitcoin Cash (BCH) through a hard fork. This has led to speculation within the community about whether the OP_Return controversy could result in a similar split. In response to the unilateral decision by Bitcoin Core developers, a significant number of Bitcoin node operators have migrated to Bitcoin Knots, an alternative node software. This shift has seen Bitcoin Knots nodes increase to about 20% of the network, a dramatic rise from just 1% in 2024.
Bitcoin Knots allows node operators to enforce strict data size limits, which supporters argue is crucial for maintaining the decentralization of the Bitcoin protocol. Since its inception in 2009, the Bitcoin ledger has accumulated approximately 680 gigabytes of data, thanks to its simple architecture and strict data limits. This low data storage requirement enables individuals to run a node on standard computer hardware for as little as $300, promoting democratized access and ensuring decentralization. In contrast, higher-throughput blockchain networks and smart contract platforms generate significantly more data, necessitating expensive, specialized hardware to operate nodes. This results in increased centralization, as only wealthy investors and large corporations can afford to run nodes and enforce consensus rules, raising the risk of collusion to alter consensus or reverse transactions.
