Bitcoin: End of 80-byte limit in OP_RETURN divides the community

Since its inception, Bitcoin has never been more than a technical protocol. It's also a hotbed of tension between divergent visions, priorities, and uses. The latest debate concerns a seemingly minor change, but one with far broader implications than it might seem: removing the 80 byte limit in the OP_RETURN opcode.

Deciphering a new episode in the Bitcoin saga.

📌 OP_RETURN: a breach to store data in the blockchain

Introduced in 2014, OP_RETURN is an opcode (script instruction) that allows arbitrary data to be inserted into a Bitcoin transaction. Unlike other hacking methods (such as hiding data in standard scripts), OP_RETURN outputs are explicitly marked as unspendable, and therefore do not pollute the UTXO pool.

So far a 80 byte limit was imposed on these data, for avoid a drift towards “non-financial” use of the network. But this limit has just been removed in the latest version of the Bitcoin Core client.

🟢 Why some are applauding the decision

On the side of Bitcoin Core developers, this deletion is considered a clear progress in terms of clarity and efficiency :

• The limit was arbitrary and technically circumventable: many users were already storing more data via hijacked script constructs.
• This unfortunatly  reduces UTXO set pollution, encouraging the use of OP_RETURN rather than more harmful hacks.
• Deleting simplifies validation rules, making code easier to maintain.
• She reflects the reality of the network : some miners already accepted transactions with more than 80 bytes.

🔴 Why others are sounding the alarm

But for another part of the community, this decision is a strategic mistake. Figures like Luke dashjr (which played an important role in the activation of Segregated Witness « SegWit » ) is a or Samson Mow point out several dangers:

• Spam risk : more data means more unnecessary transactions and potentially congestion.
• Protocol Diversion Bitcoin is not a storage cloud. Its purpose is monetary. Every unnecessary byte undermines this mission.
• Increased centralization : more data means a heavier blockchain. And therefore, potentially, fewer nodes capable of running it.
• Problematic governance : the decision was perceived as imposed unilaterally by Bitcoin Core developers, without a clear consensus.

Luke dashjr embodies a purist vision of Bitcoin, centered on decentralization and monetary use of the network. His technical contributions are undeniable, but his strong positions on topics like Ordinals and BRC-20 fuel passionate debates within the community. He remains a key figure in understanding the ideological tensions that run through the Bitcoin ecosystem.

🧭 A debate that goes beyond technology

This debate reactivates old fault lines in the Bitcoin ecosystem:

• On one side, a vision techno-pragmatic, which accepts certain non-monetary uses if this helps reduce waste elsewhere.
• On the other, a posture minimalist and purist, which wants to preserve the monetary essence of Bitcoin, even at the cost of apparent rigidities.

Here we find a well-known tension: Should we accept certain diversions of the protocol, or preserve its initial purpose at all costs?

🧮 Practical consequences

Technically, this modification don't touch the consensus, but only to the transaction validation policy in the mempool.
Clear :

• Up-to-date Bitcoin Core nodes will now accept unlimited OP_RETURNs.
• Others (Bitcoin Knots, non-updated versions) will continue to reject them.

It is therefore not not a hard fork, but a divergence in local validation rules.

note that The number of Bitcoin Knots nodes has jumped in recent weeks (+49%), a sign of a growing distrust of Bitcoin Core's recent choices.

Final word

This debate isn't just about bytes. It's a further manifestation of the central tension that has driven Bitcoin since its inception:
Can we innovate without betraying? Can we evolve without diluting ourselves?

As always, it's up to the community—developers, users, miners, and nodes—to answer. But one thing is certain: The Bitcoin protocol remains alive and dynamic precisely because different issues are still being debated.