Alright, I’ve spent a few hours diving into this Bitcoin OP_RETURN debate, and it’s not just noise, it’s a big deal. This is about what Bitcoin should be: a financial network or a platform for basically anything.

The history… About a decade ago (2014), Bitcoin added OP_RETURN, a script code, as a way to embed up to 80 bytes of data (such as NFT-like Ordinals) in transactions. These outputs don’t bloat the UTXO set, Bitcoin’s ledger of spendable coins, because they’re unspendable and prunable. But they do take up block space, which can crowd out financial transactions if the data gets too big. Fact, not opinion.

Now, in 2025, a proposal (pull request #32359) by developer Peter Todd wants to scrap the 80-byte limit and allow multiple OP_RETURN outputs. Supporters say this would reduce UTXO bloat (since workarounds like Taproot are potentially worse) and support projects like sidechains. Critics, like Luke Dashjr and Samson Mow, call this “spam data” and worry it’ll bloat the blockchain, raise fees, and turn Bitcoin into something akin to “Ethereum 3.0.” They argue Bitcoin should stick to financial transactions, not NFTs or random data. To this end, Luke’s Ocean Mining pool filters some transactions.

My take? This needs a cooling-off period. The tech and economic implications (fees, node costs, decentralization) are complex, and rushing this risks splitting the community. Let’s debate thoroughly and let Bitcoin’s consensus process: developers, miners, nodes, users sort it out. No cop-out; it’s just how Bitcoin should work imo.

In the meantime, miners already pick and choose transactions (some filter, some don’t). That’s competition enough while we figure this out. Bitcoin’s strength is its community hashing out tough calls like this.

cc @Excellion @PrestonPysh @LukeDashjr @saylor @udiWertheimer @APompliano

(I’m sure the “community” will happily correct my mistakes. lol)