Compiled by: GaryMa, Wu Says Blockchain
Recently, HashKey's investment research director @jeffreyhu detailed the background and controversies surrounding the Bitcoin Core proposal to "remove the OPRETURN data limit." Wu Says has summarized and integrated the viewpoints of relevant community members, as follows.
Background: Controversy over OP_RETURN Data Limit
OPRETURN is an opcode in Bitcoin's scripting language used to embed a small amount of data in Bitcoin transactions. It allows users to store data on the blockchain, but these outputs are "provably unspendable," meaning they do not add to the burden of the UTXO (unspent transaction output) set. Currently, Bitcoin Core's default limit is an OPRETURN data size of 80 bytes, and node policies (rather than consensus rules) restrict the propagation of OP_RETURN transactions larger than 83 bytes.
Developer Peter Todd proposed PR #32359, suggesting the removal of this limit and the deletion of related configuration options (such as -datacarrier and -datacarriersize), effectively cutting off the nodes' ability to configure these settings independently, which sparked intense discussion.
Viewpoints Summary
Supporters' Viewpoints:
● The current limit is ineffective because it can be bypassed by directly submitting to the miner's mempool (e.g., MARA Slipstream) or using unrestricted nodes (e.g., Libre Relay). (For instance, the known maximum OP_RETURN output has reached 79,870 bytes).
● Some users even use OP_RETURN to treat the chain as a message board. There are also tools to help package data onto the chain (opreturnbot.com), as long as fees are paid.
● Removing the limit may be more compatible with miner incentives, as miners can earn more income by competing for block space.
Opponents' Viewpoints:
● Removing the limit would lead to more non-transactional data being written to the chain (e.g., shitcoin), crowding block space and driving up transaction fees.
● Although the limit can be bypassed, node policies are still useful (e.g., limiting propagation to reduce the pressure of junk data on the network).
Personal Detailed Viewpoints Collection:
Nothing Research partner @0xTodd: Supports the removal of the 80-byte data limit on OPRETURN, arguing that the current limit is ineffective and that removing it can bring multiple benefits, including a return to Bitcoin's early design, reducing network burden, supporting ecological development, increasing miner income, and aligning with libertarian ideals.
- Unlimited in Satoshi's Era, Returning to Classics
● In Satoshi's era (early Bitcoin), OP_RETURN had no byte limit.
● In 2014, Bitcoin introduced a 40-byte limit (later increased to 80 bytes) to maintain Bitcoin's "purity" (for accounting rather than data storage).
● 0x_Todd believes that removing the 80-byte limit is not "heretical," but rather a return to the classical design of Satoshi's era, aligning with Bitcoin's original spirit.
- Current Limit is Ineffective and Easily Bypassed
● The current 80-byte limit is essentially meaningless, akin to a "10 cm high fence," unable to prevent users from storing large data.
● Bypassing methods include using Inscriptions, Runes, and other protocols to store data through multiple transactions.
● Bypassing through node policies, such as using the Libre Relay client (whose slogan is "eliminate paternalism in Bitcoin Core's relay policy"). Peter Todd (the proposer of PR #32359) is one of the core developers of Bitcoin Core, ranked in the top ten for contributions, and supporting the removal of the limit reflects a "de-paternalism" approach, which is worth supporting.
- Reducing the Burden of Inscriptions on the Network
● Inscriptions currently store data by "exploiting bugs" (e.g., bypassing the 80-byte limit through multiple transactions), increasing the network burden.
● After removing the 80-byte limit, inscriptions can store data directly through OP_RETURN, reducing unnecessary multiple transactions and lowering the pressure on the network.
● Additional note: Inscriptions are currently not popular, so this reason is merely "an add-on" (a minor reason).
- Providing Additional Income for Miners, Aligning with Libertarianism
● Removing the limit can bring additional income to miners.
● For example: 0xTodd mentioned a 7MB "super large bug" OPRETURN block, where the sender paid a fee of $3,600.
● This indicates the authenticity of market demand: some are willing to pay for large data to be on-chain, and miners are willing to package it.
● 0x_Todd holds a libertarian stance, believing that such "market-determined" behavior (mutual agreement) should not be restricted, and that hard intervention is meaningless.
● Additional benefit: As Bitcoin undergoes halving every four years, miner income decreases; allowing large OP_RETURN transactions can increase income, incentivizing miners to continue contributing hash power and strengthening the security of the Bitcoin network.
HashKey investment research director @jeffreyhu: Tends to oppose the removal of the 80-byte data limit on OPRETURN. He believes that removing the limit may have negative impacts (e.g., non-transactional data crowding block space) while emphasizing the importance of user freedom (retaining configuration options). He argues that the support and opposition are more about ideological differences, with no absolute right or wrong in the short term. In response to @0xTodd's four arguments, he elaborates on his viewpoints:_
- Unlimited in Satoshi's Era, but Not Reasonable
● OP_RETURN had no limits in Satoshi's era, but not all of Satoshi's designs were reasonable; many early designs later proved problematic (e.g., some modifications before and after the block wars).
● One cannot simply use "unlimited in Satoshi's era" as a reason to support the removal of limits; Satoshi's designs may not necessarily apply today.
- Peter Todd's Position and Bitcoin Core's Role
● The removal of the limit is merely a proposal from the Bitcoin Core client, not a decision for the entire Bitcoin network.
● Peter Todd is a senior developer whose philosophy leans towards "incentive compatibility" (similar to Full-RBF logic: preventing gentlemen but not scoundrels); proposing the removal of the limit aligns with his style, but is not surprising.
● Bitcoin Core's "paternalistic" approach (e.g., removing configuration options) is worth discussing, as it may limit user freedom.
- Inscriptions Issue: Limited Significance of Removing the Limit
● Removing the 80-byte limit has limited help for inscriptions.
● 80 bytes is insufficient to store large files (e.g., images), but enough for the BRC-20 protocol to write JSON data (for issuing tokens).
● Even if Bitcoin provides powerful features (e.g., one-time seals, SegWit), there will always be those who issue tokens on-chain in the "ugliest" ways; removing the limit cannot fundamentally solve this problem.
- Miner Income and Libertarianism: User Freedom is More Important
● The impact on miner income is complex (it may increase income, but could also harm the "exclusive service" advantage of mining pools).
● Supporting libertarianism: Users have the right to pay to put data on-chain; OP_RETURN storing data is more elegant than inscriptions (two transactions + increased UTXO dust).
● However, emphasizing user freedom: As a full node operator, he needs the freedom to choose whether to propagate this data (e.g., message board content is irrelevant to him).
● Criticizes Bitcoin Core for removing configuration options (e.g., -datacarriersize and Full-RBF configuration), which deprives users of choice.
● If Bitcoin Core does not provide this freedom, he may switch to Bitcoin Knots or add transaction filters, but believes this approach may be "futile."
UTXO Stack founder @crypcipher: Supports the removal of the limit, arguing that rather than allowing people to bypass it, it is better to open it up directly. He mentioned that protocols like ordi write data exceeding 80 bytes through multiple transactions, and removing the limit can reduce this "ineffective work" and UTXO dust.
Fiamma co-founder @cyimonio: Opposes, arguing that some Bitcoin L2 projects (such as storing state data on Bitcoin) merely treat Bitcoin as a data availability (DA) layer, which is not significant and amounts to "spending a lot of money for trivial matters."
Consensus Rules and Node Policies
"Since it can be bypassed, is there any use for node restrictions?"
Yes, but to understand this issue, we must start with OP_RETURN and the "consensus rules" and "node policies" it involves.
OP_RETURN is an opcode in Bitcoin's scripting language that immediately terminates the execution of the script and marks the output as "provably unspendable."
The behavior of OP_RETURN (terminating script execution and marking output as unspendable) is a core rule of the Bitcoin protocol and is part of the consensus rules. Consensus rules only care about "whether it is unspendable," not the specific size of the accompanying data.
The limitation on the specific size of data accompanying OP_RETURN falls under node policy. Nodes can do quite a bit because they can decide how to handle the transaction data they receive.
● Before going on-chain: Before the block is packaged, there are restrictions on whether this transaction can propagate in the P2P network. Bitcoin Core previously did not propagate OP_RETURN transactions larger than 83 bytes, but if such transactions exist in a new block, they will be recognized as valid by the nodes since they comply with consensus rules, and the chain will not fork.
● After going on-chain, nodes can also take action, such as automatically discarding the data accompanying OP_RETURN to reduce their storage overhead.
Possible Impacts and Suggestions
Positive: May increase miner income and support Bitcoin ecological projects (e.g., Runes, Alkanes, and sidechains).
Negative: Crowding block space for ordinary Bitcoin users.
Miner Attitude Uncertain: On one hand, increased competition for block space may increase income; on the other hand, mining pools may not like it, as the "exclusive service" advantage of packaging non-standard transactions will decrease.
Personal Suggestions:
If the PR passes but users dislike it, they can choose to run a client with stricter limits (e.g., Bitcoin Knots) or an older version. Reassess the role of Bitcoin Core (weighing security patches, node policies, and consensus rules) and consider choosing a client that aligns more with personal ideals.
Reference Links:
https://x.com/jeffrey_hu/status/1917491946609860991
https://x.com/0x_Todd/status/1917889200684454340
https://x.com/jeffrey_hu/status/1917970887917343184
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
