The effectiveness of most blocks is verified using Bitcoin Core clients. It’s no wonder that developers working on Bitcoin Core have some kind of impact on Bitcoin itself. Recently, they have been pushing to remove any data restrictions from blocks (non-financial data, such as text messages, photos, etc.). Despite the backlash from the Bitcoin community, Bitcoin core developers discussed with their peers and pushed for implementation. Citrea has been appointed as an implementation stakeholder.
table of contents
What Bitcoin Core will be changed?
Bitcoin Core will remove OP_RETURN in the next version scheduled for release in October. op_return is a scripted Bitcoin core developer added to Bitcoin in 2014. It aims to limit any data (such as biblical poems, images) in each block and separate it from more important information related to BTC transactions.
The fact that there is only 83 bytes of space per block is intended for any data recorded in the aggressive TX output. It is worth noting that Bitcoin core developers are encouraging Bitcoin to not record any data using the Bitcoin blockchain. Bitcoin Core OP_RETRUN segment in Bitcoin Core 0.9.0 release description:
“(op_return) is not an approval to store data on the blockchain. To avoid the already deployed data storage schemes due to the OP_return change, the op_return change avoids data storage schemes that had forever stored images such as conservative TX output, and plagiarizes Bitcoin’s Utxo database.
Storing arbitrary data on a blockchain remains a bad idea. Storing non-currency data elsewhere is expensive and much more efficient. ”
However, 11 years later, the Bitcoin Core developer decided to remove the 83-byte limit, allowing users to manually set their own limits. By default, there are no restrictions at all. It could promote the use of Bitcoin blockchain to back various media content and more. Note that even with the 83-byte limit, Bitcoin is always used for any data transaction. This limit is believed to keep Bitcoin safe for overload and spam.
read more: NFT sales of Bitcoin hit record in December 2023
Despite much criticism from the community, the changes were implemented. The way Bitcoin Core was pushing for change sparked controversy that reached people who were not engaged in Bitcoin’s high-tech backroom.
Conflict reasoning of change
In a statement released on June 6, 2025, Bitcoin Core cited censorship resistance as the reason for the change. However, Peter Todd, the developer who created a pull request asking for the removal of OP_Return, raised another reason. He called data recorded in TX that does not interfere with is a harmful burden for developers, and emphasized that it is more efficient to remove restrictions entirely.
“As discussed in the mailing list discussion, the entity uses a dedicated output instead of the Op_return output, precisely because of size limits. This unnecessarily increases the UTXO set size.
There is no reason why Bitcoin Core is forced to put a burden on maintenance to maintain arbitrary limits that are thought to be ineffective and even harmful. ”
One of the problems in this case is the centralization issue. Knot software is one of the preferred alternatives over Bitcoin core, but it has a much lower impact on the network. As Peter Todd puts in one of his messages, “We (…) know that even if, for example, you get 50% of the nodes and 25% of the hash power, knots aren’t effective in not letting transactions get mined.
At the same time, the Bitcoin core statement reads: “We recognize that this view is not universally held by all users and developers, but it is a sincere belief that it is in the best interest of Bitcoin and its users, and we hope that users agree.” This part of the statement is somewhat inconsistent with the second paragraph, which states that “the core contributors of Bitcoin are not in a mandatory position (specific policies).”
> Bitcoin Core is just one of the protocol implementations that anyone can copy and modify. The only thing that makes it special is how its contributors make decisions.
🤦🏻♂ 🤦🏻♂️
What makes the core “special” is not only that, but it is the most popular node…– c (@RipReason) June 9, 2025
Marine mining executives using the Bitcoin Mechanic Handle assume that Citrea can support the proposal. Citrea is the company that raised $14 million in 2024 to add layer 2 functionality to the Bitcoin blockchain. However, Citrea’s Jameson Lopps dismissed these claims.
The more I see it, the worse it gets.
Again, this is not a technical discussion. It’s a bad actor who is pushing malicious changes to Bitcoin.
citrea * need * Your memory needs your members to tolerate their junk, and the core is determined to help them by doing so…
– Mechanic #fixthefilters #300kb (@grassfedbitcoin) May 4, 2025
In April, the Bitcoin mechanic posted a tweet claiming it was banned on Github for criticizing the removal of Op_return restrictions.
Community Battle
Online anger was caused by two reasons. The implementation itself and the way Bitcoin Core drives it despite the important opposition.
Don’t let bad actors trick you into thinking about Bitcoin Core 30.
1) Unlimited defaults, and they broke it even more. DataCarrierSize = 83 Now (like Core 30) allows for a total of 830 bytes of spam.
– June 10, 2025
Opponents of Bitcoin advocates can turn it into a platform similar to many other multipurpose blockchains, not a blockchain to host videos, images and more, but rather a platform similar to many other multipurpose blockchains at the expense of the resources needed for financial transactions.
Be prepared for a flood of “bitcoin-based” defi, inscriptions and contract products that will firmly move Bitcoin to “web3 space.”
Bitcoin Core and its sponsors have assured that Bitcoin is no longer just boring old money! https://t.co/rcnup6d5un
– Justin Bechler (@1914ad) June 9, 2025
Furthermore, the way Bitcoin’s core developers advocated their vision, ignored or hidden messages of opposition on various platforms, and tried to move debate out of public spaces contributed to the debate that had caused a wave across the cryptocurrency community.
Previously, at this level of controversy, the PRS was closed after being called controversial, but now it has not been
Clearly, the motivation behind this has nothing to do with improving the protocol
-delta-v (@sellsideshits) June 9, 2025
But Bitcoin Core developers claim they are right. They say that those who feel disgusted about Bitcoin Core 0.30 may just fork. They don’t pretend to believe this is efficient.
Attacks on the core are PSYOP. It’s very uncomfortable and rude.
Already fork, we can shorten you to zero
– David Bailey🇵🇷$1.0mm/btc is on the floor (@davidfbailey) June 8, 2025
Many years ago, Bitcoin ABC and Bitcoin SV were fighting for block size and true Bitcoin names. At the end of the day, both currencies were defeated by the original Bitcoin. Will the implementation of Bitcoin Core change Bitcoin to something different? I will study by the end of the year.
You might like it too: Competing Bitcoin Cash Forks show different results. Minors support SV and traders use ABC
