Bitcoin community in dispute over short messages attached to transactions
- The proposal to abolish Bitcoin short messages via OP_Return splits the Bitcoin community.
- Critics argue that a loosening of the short messages of short messages endanger the basic principles of Bitcoin and decentralization.
“OP_RETurn” is a Bitcoin program command that allows metadata to be attached to a transaction-hashes, information or short messages. Since 2014, however, the scope has been limited to a single message per transaction and a maximum of 80 characters.
The proposal to remove this size restriction has triggered a heated debate within. More signs would have transactions processed larger data records, which would enable improved functionality of sidechains and cross-chain-bridges.
However, numerous members of the Bitcoin community believe that this change deviates from the basic principles of decentralization and unadulterated money. The differences between opinion between the Bitcoin core developers and their critics are increasing.
Proposal for the cancellation of the OP_Return limits
Bitcoin Core developer Peter Todds Pr #32359 on Github suggests Removing the 80-byte limit for OP_Return, an opcode that allows small data packages in transactions. Todd argues that this would clean up the code base and consider growing applications such as side cechains and cross-chain-bridges.
According to Todd, higher limits would reflect the current practices and reduce workarounds: “The restrictions can easily be avoided by direct substitution and forks by Bitcoin Core,” said Todd in the comments on Github.
The supporters say that it would make Bitcoin more flexible and scalable. They point out that current workarounds such as Taproot unspentable outputs and private storage pools of the miners have made the current limit useless. These alternatives allow users to store non-financial data and to bypass the current limit, so that some developers think that the formalization of higher limits would be good for the network.
Bitcoin threats?
But this proposal has met with violent resistance. Critics say that Bitcoin would transform into a platform for non-monetary applications such as data storage, as with old coins.
A loud critic, Jason Hughes, threw the developers beforeto ignore the concerns of the broad community, and said BTC would be a “worthless old coin”. He fears that the increase in the amount of data would lead to a bloating of the blockchain and that it would make it more difficult for individual nodes to operate the network. “This is a betrayal of Bitcoin’s basic principles,” said Hughes and warned that this would bring BTC away from its original purpose as a decentralized currency.
This is reminiscent of the “Op_Return wars“2014, when the community debated the use of the blockchain for non-financial purposes and the data size limit was reduced. At that time, services such as veriblock were criticized to flood the chain with data, which led to larger blocks and higher transaction fees. Many in the Bitcoin community think that this proposal would bring these problems back.
Proponents see growth potential
Despite the Counter reaction Support some in the community of Todd’s proposal. They argue that the approval of non-financial applications such as Sidechains and Bridges could increase the transaction volume, which would be good for the network.
Carbon, a popular X-user, agrees that the restrictions could lead to more transactions and improve the benefits of the network.
I disagree.
Catering to applications such as side chains and bridges drives more transactions which is good for the network.
Ppl want to use the chain, let them use the chain.
And ppl already bypass the limit anyway.
Siding with core devs on this one.
– carbon
(@basedkarbon) April 29, 2025
Peter Todds criticincluding Luke Dashjr, are still against it. Dashjr and others describe the proposal as “completely crazy” and say that the weak points should be remedied in the existing code base instead of enabling “junk data attacks”.
According to Dashjr, a loosening of the data limit would bring security risks and restrict the ability of the decentralized currency.
The debate about the OP_Return memory limitation makes a highlight of deeper problems in the Bitcoin ecosystem, including the fear of a centralization of the developers and the loss of Bitcoin’s status as a currency protocol. Some developers think that every change to the Bitcoin core could have far-reaching consequences for the future of Bitcoin.
This happens at a time when the interest of the institutions in BTC is growing. For example, Strategy bought 15,355 BTC for $ 1.42 billion. Institutional investments bring legitimacy and stability, but also centralization. Critics say that BTC will lose his decentralized character if a small group of institutions controls the decision.
No Comments