Recent proposals related to the development of Bitcoin (BTC) have resurfaced a heated debate among key collaborators, demonstrating a deep difference in the courses that the network should take.
At the heart of the controversy is the integration application (PR) #32359 presented by developer Peter Todd in Github’s Bitcoin Core Repository, which seeks to eliminate technical limitations on Bitcoin transactions, particularly transactional limitations due to Op_return.
According to critics such as its initiative, members of Mining Pool Ocean Luke Daschul and Jason Hughes, You can change the essence of Bitcoinseparates from its original purpose as a decentralized currency and brings it to any data storage system.
The discussion raises questions whether Bitcoin must prioritize its features as money or give space to other uses that could undermine its design.
What is op_return and why are your restrictions important?
In Bitcoin, transactions can contain a special type of instruction called Op_return. Embed small amounts of arbitrary data into the Bitcoin network and without using themthat is, without representing transferable funds.
Bitcoin Core, the most employed implementation of Bitcoin software, currently imposes two restrictions: Up to 83 bytes of data via OP_Return and a single output of this type per transaction.
These restrictions are requested Minimize network usage and store non-payment-related datafor financial transactions, store space within blocks that are limited in size. Bitcoin, designed to register secure and decentralized transfers, is not optimized for storing large amounts of data. Its size and operating node cost increase.
This is a debate that has been around for over 11 years, but the restrictions on Op_return were introduced in 2014 due to similar circumstances as the current situation.
The debate resurfaced in 2023 with the launch of ordinance protocol registration, but today it is still controversial as it appears to be useless for restrictions, but protocols such as Citrea have found ways to avoid it thanks to the updates of Bitcoin, Taproot.
Eliminate the op_return limit
Peter Todd follows discussions on the Bitcoin Developer Maillist launched by developer Antoine Pointe Using alternative methods, avoid them by inserting data into the Bitcoin network.
For example, some people send data directly to miners’ Menpole through services such as Mara Slipstream. Use a modified version of Bitcoin Core as a free relay that does not apply these rules. Alternatively, rely on protocols such as ordinals and runes to insert data into non-expenditure output or transaction scripts.
According to Todd, these practices show that limits are ineffective and produce such negative effects. Unnecessary increase in UTXO sets.
In short, Todd eliminates the 83-byte limit, proposes allowing multiple op_returns by transactions, maintaining a standardized format, and simplifies the software code to reflect current use.
Who supports the initiative?
Some of the main developers of the Bitcoin ecosystem support Peter Todd’s move. Among them are Gloria Zao, Jeremy Rubin, James Obail (Jamesbu), Michael Faulkson (Michael 1011), and Jameson Ropp, as seen in the following image. It should be noted that among those who support the proposal, there are a majority of the most weighty collaborators, both in their current role and history. For example, Zhao is currently one of the Bitcoin Code maintainers.
Criticism: Changes that threaten the essence of Bitcoin
Luke Dashul, CTO (technology director) and co-founder of the ocean mining pool, is firmly opposed to the proposal, claiming to eliminate Op_return. It will open the door to increasing spam in your network. It is important to remember that pool oceans were born, among other things, as a measure to make removal or censorship transactions from targets.
In the context of Bitcoin, spam can be a transaction that takes up space within a block using non-monetary data such as JPEG files and messages. Similar to reported encryption, the protocols that facilitate the insertion of any data in Bitcoin caused in the last episode of network congestion are both ordinal and runes.
Dashjr warns that this situation could promote an attack on denial of service (2). Malicious actors saturate the network with unnecessary transactions from that perspective, increasing the size of the blocks, and accelerate the growth of the chain’s weight.
Furthermore, uncontrolled growth requires the need to store and validate the entire network, making it difficult to maintain the complete nodes essential for decentralization. If this gets heavier, maintenance costs will also increase in memory and bandwidth usage, potentially excluding users with limited resources.
According to YCHARTS, the Bitcoin archive currently measures 655 GB. However, as notified in the past and by encryption, the networks created by Nakamoto have increased in a short time after the insertion of the ordinance.
If the Bitcoin block was full as the ordinance happened at that point, today Bitcoin weighs 1,000 GB, demonstrating the challenge representing the continued growth of nodes’ operation.
The following image extracted from Pr de Todd’s Github portal shows that the proposal is included in what has been recognized as a “competition” that reveals the current state of the issue.
More opposition
On his part, Ocean’s vice president Jason Hughes took a step further and accepted the proposal as a fundamental change. Distorts the nature of Bitcoin.
For fuses, this switched network can be used as any data storage system. He undermines his vision Satoshi Nakamotodesigned Bitcoin as a decentralized financial system, and in 2010 rejected the use of Bitdns, a Bitcoin domain name system, calling for it to be implemented in a sidechain.
Hughes claims that approving this change is equivalent to a fork (fork) in Bitcoin’s philosophy, converting it into something that users and nodes did not choose.
Although it acknowledges that data is already inserted into the network via non-standard methods (e.g. ordinals and runes), Todd’s proposal argues It does not solve this problem effectively,Attackers still prefer cheaper methods, resulting in larger data volumes such as non-standard. For Hughes, this change is not only necessary; This represents a direct attack on Bitcoin’s identity.
Furthermore, Ocean’s vice president explains that many transactions with OP_Return have not been performed and that there is no need to change anything that is not used.
In Hughes’s own words, “This statement (Todd’s statement) can graduate from “The Fastest Way to Kill a Bitcoin Project.” Integrating this PR means that Bitcoin is no longer Bitcoin.”
Bitcoin Knot as an Alternative
Todd also addresses the concerns of those who want to maintain the restrictions, suggesting that these users have the option to customize the node. For whom I like to maintain the limitsTodd points out that as a limit to the op_return output, you can use Bitcoin Knot, an alternative implementation of Bitcoin Core that allows users to configure a specific policy. Note that this implementation is primarily maintained by Luke Dashjr.
In this way, he defends, “Bitcoin Core should not be held responsible for maintaining the restrictions.”
However, some developers have argued that the use of knots is effective If you also use a large amount of nodes It constitutes similar limitations and may limit the actual impact.
Another point of view that arose in the discussion is that there are options for fully node miners and operators. Do not update to a Bitcoin core version containing this changea decision that reflects the decentralized nature of Bitcoin, which determines which updates network participants will implement.
Use legitimate data and risks of Bitcoin
The discussion of the proposal to eliminate the OP_Return limit for Bitcoin Core also produced a highly exploratory answer Risks such as legal use of this flexibility.
Hughes questioned one of the arguments in favour of the proposal. This means that attackers will not use Op_return to insert data into accounting.
Ocean Rebate Manager is A significant increase in data fragmentsmoves from 500 bytes at 100 kb. According to Hughes, this increase is problematic as it can promote the insertion of large amounts of data that are not related to financial transactions, saturate blocks, increase operational costs for full nodes, and affect the decentralization of Bitcoin.
In a similar line, Lauren Mase, the developer involved in the discussion, has said that even without the op_return limit, It’s cheaper and not harmful Save the data. This is part of a transaction that contains signatures and costs less money than using op_return after segwit and taproot.
According to Massé, the latter further affects the performance of the node. “It would be reasonable for honest actors to prioritize witness data storage.
Meanwhile, Jameson Rop, a Bitcoin developer who supports Todd’s idea, offers a different perspective on Hughes’ fear, an investor in the Citrea Protocol. LOPP responds that there are concerns about potential attacks and misuse due to increased data size within blocks They are not grounded enoughbecause fuses do not specify which type of attack will occur.
In his comments, Lopp points out that other networks, such as Ethereum (ETH), handle block sizes that are much larger than what fuses consider harmful, without suffering from exploits associated with this factor. Lopp claims the size of the block itself It was not an attack vector in those networkssuggests that risk can be overestimated in the case of Bitcoin.
Additionally, LOPP offers a broader reflection on the use of Bitcoin as a data-fixing system. We recognize that there are people and entities who are interested in using Bitcoin for this purpose. Register information in an unchanging and decentralized wayand argue that ignoring this reality is not a viable solution.
In your opinion, instead of limiting these uses, Bitcoin needs to adapt to them in a controlled wayallowing the network to be useful for a variety of applications without compromising its main functions as money.
Discussions about the future of Bitcoin
The controversy over PR#32359 transcends mere technical debate and shows the tension between innovation and preservation of Bitcoin. On the other hand, Todd, Pointosot and other developers try to adapt their software to existing practices, eliminating any restrictions they consider to be ineffective.
Meanwhile, Dashjr and Hughes defend a conservative approach, prioritizing Bitcoin’s decentralization and functionality as money outweighs other uses. The fate of this proposal is still uncertain, but the discussion reflects a major challenge. It’s a way to maintain the original vision of Bitcoin in an ecosystem where technological and economic incentives are constantly evolving.
