Bitcoin’s Evolution Is Splitting the Community—Purists Cry Betrayal

A technical decision is causing waves in the Bitcoin community. The core of the protocol is about to change. For a long time, a limit prevented users from storing too much data in transactions. This limit, set at 80 bytes, concerned the OP_RETURN field. Created to allow the inclusion of data on the blockchain, it was meant to remain light and discreet. But today, this symbolic barrier is considered unnecessary. And its effects might even be counterproductive. The Bitcoin Core developers have therefore decided: the limit will be removed.

A Rule That Has Become Counterproductive in Bitcoin

OP_RETURN allows embedding data in a transaction without creating an UTXO. Introduced to avoid polluting scripts, it was a compromise: limited freedom but maintained security. The 80-byte limit aimed to deter large-scale content storage.

But users quickly bypassed the rule. Some inserted their data via fake multisig scripts. Others used fake addresses, creating much more pollution. Even some miners ignored this limit, making its application uneven.

Greg Sanders, a Bitcoin Core developer, summarized the issue on GitHub:

Massive data inscriptions happen anyway, often more opaque and more harmful. The limit only redirects them towards worse practices for the network.

Therefore, removing this limit appears as a pragmatic choice.

Voices Rise Against the Change

But this change is not unanimous. For many users, the removal of this barrier was not discussed collectively. Marty Bent asserts on X:

It is clear that there is no consensus today on the OP_RETURN question.

On his side, Samson Mow calls for caution:

Many find this decision regrettable. They can remain on version 29.0 or use another client like BitcoinKnots.

The heart of the problem is indeed this: who decides the changes in Bitcoin? Some denounce a gradual shift towards centralized governance, dominated by a few technical teams. The PR 32359 proposal, though discussed on GitHub, lacked community consultation.

This disagreement shows how fragile protocol governance remains. Users are not all ready to follow imposed changes, even when they seem logical.

What It Really Changes

Behind this technical quarrel, there are concrete implications for the network:

• The removal of the limit cleans up UTXOs: fewer bogus scripts stored;
• Transactions will be more consistent between miners and nodes;
• This improves fee estimation and relay of compact blocks;
• Blocks remain limited to 4 million weight units, no explosive drift;
• Consensus rules do not change: only relay rules are affected.

This change is therefore neither a revolution nor an abandonment of principles. It is a technical realignment with the network’s actual practice. Developers embrace a minimalist philosophy: the fee market must decide.

Protections against abuse will still exist. But they will be targeted and adapted to real threats. The project’s direction remains clear: avoid abuses while streamlining the protocol.

But the core of the debate goes beyond technique. It touches the very DNA of Bitcoin. Should symbolic rules still exist as usages evolve? Or should community control be strengthened? The removal of the OP_RETURN limit comes as the question of governance returns to the forefront. Charles Hoskinson, founder of Cardano, had already criticized the lack of clear structure in Bitcoin. Even today, this decision rekindles the debate: is the protocol governed collectively or directed behind the scenes?