{"id":128662,"date":"2025-05-06T06:24:09","date_gmt":"2025-05-06T06:24:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/?p=128662"},"modified":"2025-05-06T06:24:09","modified_gmt":"2025-05-06T06:24:09","slug":"bitcoin-core-to-unilaterally-remove-controversial-op-return-limit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/?p=128662","title":{"rendered":"Bitcoin Core to unilaterally remove controversial OP-Return limit"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Source: Cointelegraph.com NewsBitcoin Core developers have decided to remove a limit on transaction data in the next network upgrade, enabling more data to be included in a more efficient way.\u00a0<br \/>\n\u201cBitcoin Core\u2019s next release will, by default, relay and mine transactions whose OP_RETURN outputs exceed 80 bytes and allow any number of these outputs,\u201d read the announcement on GitHub by Bitcoin developer Greg Sanders on May 5.\u00a0<br \/>\nThe long-standing limit was originally a \u201cgentle signal that block space should be used sparingly for non-payment proof of publication data,\u201d has outlived its utility, he added.\u00a0<br \/>\nThe proposal (PR 32359) was created by Bitcoin pioneer Peter Todd at the request of Chaincode Labs.\u00a0<br \/>\nOP_RETURN is a special type of Bitcoin (BTC) transaction output that allows storing small amounts of data on the blockchain, popularized during the ordinals inscriptions craze in early 2024.<br \/>\nUnlike regular transaction outputs, OP_RETURN outputs are not spendable and don\u2019t bloat unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs).<br \/>\nThe original limit is no longer effective as people found ways around it, such as using fake output addresses, which are actually worse for the network, while some mining services were already ignoring the limit, said Sanders.\u00a0<br \/>\n\u201cLarge-data inscriptions are happening regardless and can be done in more or less abusive ways; the cap merely channels them into more opaque forms that cause damage to the network.\u201d\u00a0<br \/>\nRelated: Bitcoin block size could grow to 4 MB with inscriptions: Research<br \/>\nBenefits of removing the limit include a cleaner UTXO set, or database of spendable outputs, more consistent behavior across the network, and better alignment with how Bitcoin is actually being used, he added.\u00a0<br \/>\nThree possible paths were considered: keeping the cap, raising the cap and removing the cap, which was ultimately decided upon after earning \u201cbroad, though not perhaps unanimous, support.\u201d\u00a0<br \/>\nA controversial change to Bitcoin\u00a0<br \/>\n\u201cMany users find this to be an undesirable change for a number of reasons,\u201d said Bitcoiner Samson Mow on X on May 5. He added that users \u201ccan refuse to upgrade and stay on 29.0 or run another implementation\u201d of the network.\u00a0<br \/>\nCritics said that the proposal was introduced without a proper consensus process.\u00a0<br \/>\n\u201cI think one thing is pretty clear, there is no consensus at the moment on this OP_RETURN issue,\u201d said Ten31 Fund managing partner Marty Bent.<br \/>\nSome also expressed concerns about deprioritizing Bitcoin\u2019s financial utility and raised questions about undisclosed conflicts of interest.<br \/>\nCritics of OP_RETURN limit removal. Source: moonsettlerMagazine: Bitcoin to $1M \u2018by 2029,\u2019 CIA tips its hat to Bitcoin: Hodler\u2019s Digest<a href=\"https:\/\/cointelegraph.com\/news\/bitcoin-core-unilaterally-remove-controversial-op-return-limit?utm_source=rss_feed&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=rss_partner_inbound\" target=\"_blank\" class=\"feedzy-rss-link-icon\" rel=\"noopener\">Read More<\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Source: Cointelegraph.com NewsBitcoin Core developers have decided to remove a limit on transaction data in the next network upgrade, enabling more data to be included in a more efficient way.\u00a0&hellip; <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[5],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128662"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=128662"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128662\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=128662"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=128662"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=128662"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}