Bitcoin Network has witnessed an infamous change in software choices by nodes. Of the total of approximately 22,000 active nodes, approximately 2,500 use Bitcoin knots, while the reference client, Bitcoin Core, maintains approximately 19,300 nodes according to Coin.Dance data.
This means that the knot represents more than 11% of the total. Historical figures reflecting the accelerated recruitment growthespecially since April and early 2025. Reduce the number of nodes running the core.
This data can be seen in the following graphs (gray lines, total nodes, yellow lines, autumn core nodes, green lines, rising knot nodes).
What drives this change from the core to the knot?
Most of the user migration involves transaction policies for both clients. Types of transactions the node acceptsbroadcast to stores and other nodes in memory (the “waiting room” for unconfirmed transactions).
These policies do not change the Bitcoin consensus rules that define the transactions and blocks that are valid on the network, but they affect how the node is Manage resources and prioritize network traffic.
From an op_return transaction perspective, Bitcoin Core, which allows networks to contain non-financial data (metadata, text, images, etc.), chose the theoretical limit of 80 bytes per transaction. However, in the next version of V.30, Core removes that limit and allows up to 100,000 bytes of data in OP_Return.
Some Bitcoiner developers recognize the change as an acceptable approach, encouraging a wide range of network activity. They were unable to match Bitcoin’s original purpose. These developers interpret this tolerance as a carefree position before «spam«. In the context of Bitcoin, spam is called a transaction that contains non-financial data, such as embedded images and text.
From the suggestion of Bitcoin cores that this change aims to harmonize retransmission policies Current User Practicepromoting freedom of network use.
In that sense, as reported by Cryptootics, during May, Bitcoin users flooded with networks of non-financial transactions. They intend to use it for the purpose of communicating value.
Bitcoin Knot, on the other hand, takes a more restrictive approach. In relation to Op_return, knots impose a 42-byte limit by default.
Additionally, it includes options specifically called «Rejects parasites«, allow the operator Filter transactions considered low valuessuch as those related to non-financial data protocols, including popular ordinances that embed images or text in Bitcoin files. These policies aim to reduce node load and prioritize currency transactions.
Bitcoin Knots takes an approach to giving node operators Great ability to define node policiesboth resend transactions and generate mining templates.
This allows knot users to exercise more granular control, which transactions prioritize and filter, adjust with a vision that refers to the sovereignty of the node operator.
Luke Dashjr and his orders to Bitcoin Node Runner
In the June 10 publication, Luke Dashul, the main developer of Bitcoin Knot and Ocean Mining Pool, did not hesitate to point it out. “The only way is to move to Knott now on a large scale.”.
DashJR has raised concerns about changes implemented in version 30 of Bitcoin Core, particularly in relation to parameters known as “parameters.”DataCarriersize“(Can be translated as ‘data size limit’).
This parameter, which defines the maximum allowed size for any data (e.g. embedded text or files) in a Bitcoin transaction, has more restrictive limits in previous versions (e.g. Bitcoin Core v.29), limiting such data to a total of about 92 bytes (including 80 bytes of arbitrary data and 12 bytes of structural metadata).
However, due to new changes when establishing DataCarrierSize = 83 The transaction potential can include up to 83 separate exits. The amount of arbitrary data of approximately 830 bytes increasesLuke considers set-off from the perspective of protection spam On the network.
Additionally, Luke warns about this feature (DataCarriersize)) It was abolished, and the core team Plans to eliminate it in future versions And without informing him in advance, he says. This decision, in his opinion, takes away the node operator and the important tools that limit the use of the network for non-financial purposes.
He also criticized the Core for never approaching what he called “inscription vulnerabilities.”
These vulnerabilities allow users to exploit code failures Include more data than allowed By the limits of DataCarriersizeoverloading the network with transactions that many people think are unrelated to financial operations.
Thus, the perspective of the Ocean Pool creators who argue that Bitcoin Knot offers a safer approach and is consistent with the principles of decentralization compared to the decision of Bitcoin Core is: I can resonate among other operators of nodes that share similar visions.
This position affects the choices of people moving from the core to the knot, reflecting the preferences of Knot’s policy that promotes user control and protection against non-financial use of the network.