A civil war over Bitcoin's core values and future direction is intensifying. The Bitcoin Core developer team recently confirmed that it will significantly ease the data storage limitations of the OP_RETURN function in the upcoming Core30 version, scheduled for release on October 30, 2025.
This seemingly purely technical adjustment has ignited fierce controversy within the community, seen by many veteran Bitcoin supporters (OGs) as a fundamental betrayal of the 'sound money' concept. Opponents have angrily claimed that this move will turn Bitcoin into a 'garbage chain' filled with useless data, with some individuals even expressing their protest by selling BTC and threatening to exit the industry. For a time, the shadow of whether Bitcoin would replay the 2017 block size war, leading to division and hard forks, once again loomed over the entire crypto world.
OP_RETURN Restrictions
The core of this controversy lies in an adjustment to the OP_RETURN relay policy in the Bitcoin Core 30 update. OP_RETURN is a special type of transaction output that allows users to embed a small amount of arbitrary data in Bitcoin transactions, and this data is non-spendable, thus it does not permanently 'inflate' Bitcoin's UTXO (Unspent Transaction Output) set like regular transactions.
In the past, to prevent the abuse of the blockchain, the data capacity of OP_RETURN was strictly limited to 80 bytes. However, with the rise of the Ordinals protocol in 2024, a large number of users began seeking to store images, text, and other non-financial data (i.e., 'inscriptions') on the Bitcoin chain, making the original limitation seem inadequate.
The upcoming update plans to remove the 80-byte limit, allowing a single transaction to include multiple OP_RETURN outputs, each capable of carrying up to 4MB of data. This change, supported by 31 Bitcoin Core developers, undoubtedly represents a significant leap in data capacity since Bitcoin's inception.
This change has thrown a giant stone into the calm lake, instantly splitting the Bitcoin community into two distinct factions. Supporters, represented by Bitcoin Core developer Gloria Zhao, believe this adjustment is pragmatic and necessary. Their main argument is:
Facilitation rather than obstruction: The original 80-byte limit did not effectively prevent users from storing data on-chain. Instead, it forced users to adopt dirtier methods that are more harmful to the network, such as hiding data in spendable UTXOs, which would lead to permanent inflation of the UTXO set and increase the long-term operating costs for all full nodes. Easing the OP_RETURN restrictions provides a cleaner, more network-friendly channel for data storage.
Reducing centralization risk: The reality is that many miners have already been privately accepting large data transactions that exceed standard limits (bypassing the public transaction pool to transact directly with miners). This situation undermines Bitcoin's resistance to censorship and generates centralization pressures. The adjustment of Bitcoin Core's strategy aims to align it with the actual mining behaviors of miners and create a fairer competitive environment.
Respecting user freedom: Supporters argue that Bitcoin is an open network, and developers should not act as 'gatekeepers' to judge which transactions are 'good' and which are 'bad'. Gloria Zhao emphasizes: 'Requesting Bitcoin Core to prevent certain types of transactions from being packaged by miners reflects a misunderstanding of the relationship between open-source software users and developers.'
However, to Bitcoin's 'fundamentalists' and many veteran OGs, this update is akin to opening a 'Pandora's box'. Their concerns and anger mainly focus on:
Bitcoin Becoming a 'Garbage Coin': This is the core argument of the opponents. They firmly believe that Bitcoin's unique and sacred mission is to become a decentralized, censorship-resistant, sound peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Significantly easing data restrictions will inevitably lead to the blockchain being flooded with a large amount of 'garbage data' unrelated to financial transactions (such as images, memes, text, etc.), which will dilute Bitcoin's core value, deviate from its original purpose, and ultimately lead to 'garbage coinification'. Jason Hughes, Vice President of mining company Ocean, angrily stated: 'Are we Bitcoin enthusiasts? Now we are garbage coins.'
Threat to decentralization: The rapid expansion of blockchain data will significantly increase the storage, bandwidth, and verification costs of running a full Bitcoin node. Over time, only financially strong companies or institutions will be able to afford the costs of running full nodes, and ordinary users will be forced to rely on third-party services. This will fundamentally erode Bitcoin's decentralized nature, which is the cornerstone of its value.
Increased systemic risk: Alexander Lin, co-founder of cryptocurrency investment firm Reforge, bluntly stated that expanding data limits is a 'terrible mistake' and claims this will 'increase the systemic risks to Bitcoin's core characteristics as sound money.'
This change has been criticized as being 'forced through' without broad community consensus. Some opponents have even faced bans for expressing strong dissent in GitHub development channels (which officials described as sending spam). This has further exacerbated the community's feelings of division, believing that the development team's decision-making process is not transparent and democratic.
Moreover, the intensity of this controversy has far exceeded the realm of technical discussion, evolving into a crisis of trust in the Bitcoin Core development team. Many long-time Bitcoin supporters have expressed extreme disappointment. Dennis Porter, Executive Director of the Satoshi Action Fund, pointed out: 'I previously assisted core developers in raising over $200,000 in the Bitcoin space. Now, my confidence in their work has been shattered.' Jason Hughes even hinted that he might consider selling his Bitcoin and exiting the industry because of this.
This emotional backlash is directly reflected in the market data. Since the proposal was announced, Bitcoin Core's dominance in the Bitcoin node market has significantly dropped from about 98% to around 88%, with the lost share primarily absorbed by the more conservative Bitcoin Knots client.
Bitcoin at a Crossroads
Whenever there is such a fundamental philosophical divergence in the Bitcoin community, the ghost of 'hard forks' will appear. Many recall the 'block size war' of 2017, when the debate over whether to expand block capacity ultimately led to a rift in the Bitcoin community and gave rise to the hard fork of Bitcoin Cash (BCH).
Although this adjustment to OP_RETURN is merely a 'relay strategy' rather than a change in 'consensus rules', it theoretically should not directly lead to a fork. However, if opposition sentiment continues to ferment, and a sufficient number of miners and users choose to run alternative clients that adhere to the old rules or adopt different rules (such as BitcoinKnots), then the risk of community division will become real once these alternative clients achieve a certain market share. If irreconcilable differences arise between the transaction validation and packing rules of different clients, a new chain could potentially split from the main chain, replaying the history of forks.
The controversy over OP_RETURN has once again pushed Bitcoin to a historical crossroads. This is not just a modification of a line of code, but a profound inquiry into the soul of Bitcoin: should it adhere to the simplicity and purity of being digital gold and 'sound money', or should it embrace a broader range of application scenarios, becoming a more programmable and scalable data platform?
Currently, it seems that the differences between both sides are irreconcilable. As the October 30 update date approaches, this storm is bound to intensify. The protests of opponents and the migration of users' nodes are merely the prelude to this 'civil war'. Bitcoin holders and enthusiasts around the world are closely watching where this flagship of the crypto world will ultimately head. Will it maintain its course or will it create new branches due to internal divisions? The answer may be revealed in the near future.