The Bitcoin core development team has once again pushed this debate about Bitcoin's 'identity' to the forefront.
On June 9, Bitcoin Core officially announced plans to remove the default limit on OP_RETURN data in version 30, to be released on October 30, expanding the original 80-byte limit to nearly 4MB. This change is not just a code revision but a shock to the Bitcoin belief system.
Within just a few hours, the Bitcoin community has once again fallen into a state of opinion fragmentation: supporters shout 'this is to loosen the chains for on-chain innovation', while opponents angrily accuse 'the spirit of Bitcoin has been betrayed', and even some mining pool executives announced their exit as a form of protest.
Is this a minor technical adjustment or a fundamental 'route dispute'? Starting from the data and perspectives of the Mlion.ai platform, we attempt to restore the full picture of the event.
What is OP_RETURN, and why has it sparked such intense debate?
OP_RETURN is an opcode in the Bitcoin script system that allows users to embed a small amount of unspendable data in a transaction. The current default allowed data size in Bitcoin Core is 80 bytes. However, it is important to note that this is not a consensus layer restriction but a node propagation strategy setting, meaning users can theoretically bypass it, such as by directly submitting transactions to a mining pool or using unrestricted relay services.
Core developer Peter Todd submitted a proposal to remove OP_RETURN restrictions as early as 2023, but it was not accepted due to significant controversy. In April this year, he attempted to push it forward again, finally gaining support in June and planning to implement it in October.
Supporters: This is not 'polluting Bitcoin', but 'unlocking potential'
The core viewpoints of the expansion faction can be summarized as follows:
Lifting restrictions helps promote innovation in on-chain applications: W3C standards for verifiable credentials, RGB state proofs, and new metadata for the Lightning Network all require capacity exceeding 80 bytes. The 80-byte limit acts as a technical bottleneck.
It is beneficial to reduce on-chain resource waste: Currently, many protocols split large data into multiple transactions; if restrictions are lifted, it can be embedded in a single transaction, reducing UTXO inflation.
Increase miner income: After each halving, miners face increasing survival pressure. Opening large size #OP_RETURN can enhance competition for transaction fees and strengthen the sustainability of the economic model.
Return to Satoshi's original intent: Satoshi never set such restrictions; they were gradually added later. Lifting restrictions is a return to Bitcoin's 'openness'.
From the on-chain data visualization of Mlion.ai, it can be seen that recent data transactions related to inscriptions have risen again, indicating that the demand for on-chain storage has not weakened but instead has shown structured growth, forcing a reevaluation of the underlying logic of demand.
Opponents: Is OP_RETURN expansion a 'betrayal of consensus'?
Opponents see this as a dangerous 'technological alienation' act. They are concerned that:
Block space is occupied by low-value data: Images, audio, and junk data flooding in waste the scarce block space and drive up the fees for ordinary transactions.
The principle of Bitcoin 'de-data storage' has been violated: BTC should focus on high-value transfers, rather than being used as a data platform.
Centralized strategy undermines the spirit of decentralization: The removal of the -datacarrier parameter configuration option in the new version is seen as a paternalistic centralization behavior by developers.
Attracting low-quality applications will undermine Bitcoin's credibility: Non-financial applications represented by inscriptions once caused mempool congestion and skyrocketing fees.
Feedback from the Mlion.ai analyst community shows that many technical voices are calling for more 'restrained flexibility'—retaining parameter configuration rights rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. They also suggest introducing a smart fee adjustment mechanism to set floating fee floors for non-financial OP_RETURN transactions to achieve some economic self-control.
The focal question: What should Bitcoin ultimately become?
This is actually the core proposition behind the OP_RETURN controversy.
If you believe Bitcoin is 'digital gold', a cornerstone of value storage, then you should adhere to minimalism, emphasizing stability and purity, and strictly limit non-financial uses.
If you believe Bitcoin can also become a 'settlement layer' similar to Ethereum, supporting diversified data interactions and on-chain logic, then OP_RETURN expansion may be a necessary step.
Currently, this technical controversy has gradually evolved into a struggle of beliefs. Developers, mining pools, node operators, and end users are viewing the future of Bitcoin from different positions. Future Bitcoin core upgrades may increasingly be not just code updates, but truly a 'direction choice'.
In conclusion: Your node may determine the future
For ordinary users, understanding the essence of this technical debate is not easy. However, platforms like Mlion.ai can help track real-time technical changes in the Bitcoin ecosystem, developer dynamics, and on-chain behavior data, assisting in investment judgment and strategy formulation.
In this era where intelligent narratives and market resonance intertwine, the meaning of 'nodes' has never been so clear—both technically and ideologically.
The above content is for informational sharing only and does not constitute any investment advice.
