A "civil war" surrounding the core values and future direction of Bitcoin is intensifying. The Bitcoin Core developer team recently confirmed that they will significantly relax the data storage limits of the OP_RETURN feature in the Core30 version, expected to be released on October 30, 2025.
This seemingly purely technical adjustment has triggered intense controversy within the community, viewed by many senior Bitcoin supporters (OG) as a fundamental betrayal of the concept of "sound money." Opponents angrily claim that this move will turn Bitcoin into a "garbage chain" filled with useless data, with some individuals even expressing their protest by selling BTC and threatening to exit the industry. For a while, the shadow of whether Bitcoin will replay the block size war of 2017, leading to division and hard forks, once again loomed over the entire crypto world.
OP_RETURN Limit
The core of this dispute lies in an adjustment to the relay policy regarding OP_RETURN in the Bitcoin Core 30 update. OP_RETURN is a special type of transaction output that allows users to embed a small amount of arbitrary data in a Bitcoin transaction, and this data is non-spendable, thus it does not permanently "inflate" the Bitcoin UTXO (unspent transaction output) set like regular transactions.
In the past, to prevent the abuse of blockchain, the data capacity of OP_RETURN was strictly limited to 80 bytes. However, with the rise of the Ordinals protocol in 2024, a large number of users began to seek to store images, texts, and other non-financial data (i.e., "inscriptions") on the Bitcoin chain, making the original limitations seem inadequate.
The upcoming update plans to remove the 80-byte limit, allowing a single transaction to include multiple OP_RETURN outputs, each capable of carrying up to 4MB of data. This change, supported by 31 Bitcoin Core developers, is undoubtedly a significant leap in data capacity since the inception of Bitcoin.
This change is like throwing a huge stone into a calm lake, instantly splitting the Bitcoin community into two distinct camps. Supporters represented by Bitcoin Core developer Gloria Zhao believe that this adjustment is pragmatic and necessary. Their main argument is:
Guidance rather than blockage: The original 80-byte limit has not effectively prevented users from storing data on-chain. Instead, it forces users to adopt dirtier methods that are more harmful to the network, such as hiding data in spendable UTXOs, which leads to the permanent expansion of the UTXO set, increasing the long-term operational costs for all full nodes. Relaxing the OP_RETURN limit provides a cleaner and more network-friendly channel for data storage. Reducing centralization risk: The reality is that many miners have privately accepted large data transactions that exceed standard limits (trading directly with miners and bypassing the public transaction pool). This situation undermines Bitcoin's censorship resistance and creates centralization pressure. The adjustment of Bitcoin Core's strategy is to align with the actual mining behavior of miners, creating a fairer competitive environment. Respecting user freedom: Supporters argue that Bitcoin is an open network, and developers should not act as 'gatekeepers' to judge which transactions are 'good' and which are 'bad.' Gloria Zhao emphasizes: 'Demanding that Bitcoin Core prevent certain types of transactions from being bundled by miners reflects a misunderstanding of the relationship between open-source software users and developers.'
However, for the "fundamentalists" of Bitcoin and many senior OGs, this update is no different from opening the "Pandora's box." Their concerns and anger mainly focus on:
Bitcoin has been reduced to a "shitcoin": this is the core argument of the naysayers. They firmly believe that Bitcoin's only and sacred mission is to be a decentralized, censorship-resistant, and robust peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Drastically relaxing data restrictions will inevitably lead to the blockchain being flooded with a lot of "junk data" (such as images, memes, text, etc.) that is not related to financial transactions, which will dilute the core value of Bitcoin, make it deviate from its original purpose, and eventually "junk coinization". Jason Hughes, vice president of mining company Ocean, angrily stated: "Are we Bitcoin enthusiasts? We're shitcoins now. "Threat to decentralization: The rapid expansion of blockchain data will significantly increase the storage, bandwidth, and verification costs of running a Bitcoin full node. Over time, only large companies or institutions with deep pockets can afford to run a full node, and regular users will be forced to rely on third-party services. This will fundamentally erode the decentralized nature of Bitcoin, which is the cornerstone of its value. Increased systemic risk: Alexander Lin, co-founder of cryptocurrency investment firm Reforge, bluntly said that expanding the data limit was a "terrible mistake" and claimed that it would "increase the systemic risk of Bitcoin's core characteristics as sound money."
The change has been criticized as being "forcefully merged" without broad community consensus. Some opponents have even been silenced for expressing strong dissent in the GitHub development channel (officially described as sending spam messages). This has further intensified the community's divisive sentiment, believing that the development team's decision-making process is not transparent and democratic.
Moreover, the intensity of this controversy has far exceeded the scope of technical discussions, evolving into a crisis of trust in the Bitcoin Core development team. Many long-term Bitcoin supporters have expressed extreme disappointment. Dennis Porter, the executive director of the Satoshi Action Fund, pointed out: "In the past, I helped core developers raise over $200,000 in the Bitcoin space. Now, my confidence in their work has been shattered." Jason Hughes even hinted that he might consider selling his Bitcoin and exiting the industry.
This emotional rebound is directly reflected in the market data. Since the announcement of the proposal, the dominance of Bitcoin Core in the Bitcoin node market has significantly decreased from about 98% to around 88%, with the lost share mainly being taken up by the more conservative Bitcoin Knots client.
Bitcoin at the crossroads
Whenever there is such a fundamental philosophical divide in the Bitcoin community, the ghost of "hard fork" emerges. Many people recall the "block size war" of 2017, when the debate over whether to increase block capacity ultimately led to the tearing apart of the Bitcoin community and gave rise to the hard fork of Bitcoin Cash (BCH).
Although the adjustment of OP_RETURN this time is only a "relay strategy" rather than a change in "consensus rules," it theoretically should not directly lead to a fork. However, if opposition sentiment continues to ferment, and a sufficient number of miners and users choose to run alternative clients that adhere to the old rules or adopt different rules (such as BitcoinKnots), then when the market share of these alternative clients reaches a certain scale, the risk of community split will genuinely exist. Once there are irreconcilable differences in the transaction validation and packaging rules between different clients, a new chain may potentially separate from the main chain, replaying the history of forks.
The controversy over OP_RETURN has pushed Bitcoin once again to a historical crossroads. This is not just a modification of a line of code, but a profound inquiry into the soul of Bitcoin: should it adhere to the simplicity and purity of being digital gold and "sound money," or should it embrace a broader range of application scenarios and become a more programmable and scalable data platform?
Currently, it seems that the differences between both parties are difficult to reconcile. As the update date of October 30 approaches, this storm is bound to intensify. The sell-off protests from the opponents and the migration of users' nodes are just a prelude to this "civil war." Bitcoin holders and enthusiasts around the world are closely watching where this flagship of the crypto world will ultimately head. Will it maintain its course, or will new branches emerge due to internal divisions? The answer may be revealed in the near future.
The content is for reference only, not a solicitation or offer. No investment, tax, or legal advice provided. See Disclaimer for more risks disclosure.
Bitcoin is becoming a garbage coin, about to fork? OP_RETURN opponents are selling BTC in protest!
A "civil war" surrounding the core values and future direction of Bitcoin is intensifying. The Bitcoin Core developer team recently confirmed that they will significantly relax the data storage limits of the OP_RETURN feature in the Core30 version, expected to be released on October 30, 2025. This seemingly purely technical adjustment has triggered intense controversy within the community, viewed by many senior Bitcoin supporters (OG) as a fundamental betrayal of the concept of "sound money." Opponents angrily claim that this move will turn Bitcoin into a "garbage chain" filled with useless data, with some individuals even expressing their protest by selling BTC and threatening to exit the industry. For a while, the shadow of whether Bitcoin will replay the block size war of 2017, leading to division and hard forks, once again loomed over the entire crypto world. OP_RETURN Limit The core of this dispute lies in an adjustment to the relay policy regarding OP_RETURN in the Bitcoin Core 30 update. OP_RETURN is a special type of transaction output that allows users to embed a small amount of arbitrary data in a Bitcoin transaction, and this data is non-spendable, thus it does not permanently "inflate" the Bitcoin UTXO (unspent transaction output) set like regular transactions. In the past, to prevent the abuse of blockchain, the data capacity of OP_RETURN was strictly limited to 80 bytes. However, with the rise of the Ordinals protocol in 2024, a large number of users began to seek to store images, texts, and other non-financial data (i.e., "inscriptions") on the Bitcoin chain, making the original limitations seem inadequate. The upcoming update plans to remove the 80-byte limit, allowing a single transaction to include multiple OP_RETURN outputs, each capable of carrying up to 4MB of data. This change, supported by 31 Bitcoin Core developers, is undoubtedly a significant leap in data capacity since the inception of Bitcoin.
This change is like throwing a huge stone into a calm lake, instantly splitting the Bitcoin community into two distinct camps. Supporters represented by Bitcoin Core developer Gloria Zhao believe that this adjustment is pragmatic and necessary. Their main argument is: Guidance rather than blockage: The original 80-byte limit has not effectively prevented users from storing data on-chain. Instead, it forces users to adopt dirtier methods that are more harmful to the network, such as hiding data in spendable UTXOs, which leads to the permanent expansion of the UTXO set, increasing the long-term operational costs for all full nodes. Relaxing the OP_RETURN limit provides a cleaner and more network-friendly channel for data storage. Reducing centralization risk: The reality is that many miners have privately accepted large data transactions that exceed standard limits (trading directly with miners and bypassing the public transaction pool). This situation undermines Bitcoin's censorship resistance and creates centralization pressure. The adjustment of Bitcoin Core's strategy is to align with the actual mining behavior of miners, creating a fairer competitive environment. Respecting user freedom: Supporters argue that Bitcoin is an open network, and developers should not act as 'gatekeepers' to judge which transactions are 'good' and which are 'bad.' Gloria Zhao emphasizes: 'Demanding that Bitcoin Core prevent certain types of transactions from being bundled by miners reflects a misunderstanding of the relationship between open-source software users and developers.'
However, for the "fundamentalists" of Bitcoin and many senior OGs, this update is no different from opening the "Pandora's box." Their concerns and anger mainly focus on: Bitcoin has been reduced to a "shitcoin": this is the core argument of the naysayers. They firmly believe that Bitcoin's only and sacred mission is to be a decentralized, censorship-resistant, and robust peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Drastically relaxing data restrictions will inevitably lead to the blockchain being flooded with a lot of "junk data" (such as images, memes, text, etc.) that is not related to financial transactions, which will dilute the core value of Bitcoin, make it deviate from its original purpose, and eventually "junk coinization". Jason Hughes, vice president of mining company Ocean, angrily stated: "Are we Bitcoin enthusiasts? We're shitcoins now. "Threat to decentralization: The rapid expansion of blockchain data will significantly increase the storage, bandwidth, and verification costs of running a Bitcoin full node. Over time, only large companies or institutions with deep pockets can afford to run a full node, and regular users will be forced to rely on third-party services. This will fundamentally erode the decentralized nature of Bitcoin, which is the cornerstone of its value. Increased systemic risk: Alexander Lin, co-founder of cryptocurrency investment firm Reforge, bluntly said that expanding the data limit was a "terrible mistake" and claimed that it would "increase the systemic risk of Bitcoin's core characteristics as sound money." The change has been criticized as being "forcefully merged" without broad community consensus. Some opponents have even been silenced for expressing strong dissent in the GitHub development channel (officially described as sending spam messages). This has further intensified the community's divisive sentiment, believing that the development team's decision-making process is not transparent and democratic. Moreover, the intensity of this controversy has far exceeded the scope of technical discussions, evolving into a crisis of trust in the Bitcoin Core development team. Many long-term Bitcoin supporters have expressed extreme disappointment. Dennis Porter, the executive director of the Satoshi Action Fund, pointed out: "In the past, I helped core developers raise over $200,000 in the Bitcoin space. Now, my confidence in their work has been shattered." Jason Hughes even hinted that he might consider selling his Bitcoin and exiting the industry. This emotional rebound is directly reflected in the market data. Since the announcement of the proposal, the dominance of Bitcoin Core in the Bitcoin node market has significantly decreased from about 98% to around 88%, with the lost share mainly being taken up by the more conservative Bitcoin Knots client. Bitcoin at the crossroads Whenever there is such a fundamental philosophical divide in the Bitcoin community, the ghost of "hard fork" emerges. Many people recall the "block size war" of 2017, when the debate over whether to increase block capacity ultimately led to the tearing apart of the Bitcoin community and gave rise to the hard fork of Bitcoin Cash (BCH). Although the adjustment of OP_RETURN this time is only a "relay strategy" rather than a change in "consensus rules," it theoretically should not directly lead to a fork. However, if opposition sentiment continues to ferment, and a sufficient number of miners and users choose to run alternative clients that adhere to the old rules or adopt different rules (such as BitcoinKnots), then when the market share of these alternative clients reaches a certain scale, the risk of community split will genuinely exist. Once there are irreconcilable differences in the transaction validation and packaging rules between different clients, a new chain may potentially separate from the main chain, replaying the history of forks.
The controversy over OP_RETURN has pushed Bitcoin once again to a historical crossroads. This is not just a modification of a line of code, but a profound inquiry into the soul of Bitcoin: should it adhere to the simplicity and purity of being digital gold and "sound money," or should it embrace a broader range of application scenarios and become a more programmable and scalable data platform? Currently, it seems that the differences between both parties are difficult to reconcile. As the update date of October 30 approaches, this storm is bound to intensify. The sell-off protests from the opponents and the migration of users' nodes are just a prelude to this "civil war." Bitcoin holders and enthusiasts around the world are closely watching where this flagship of the crypto world will ultimately head. Will it maintain its course, or will new branches emerge due to internal divisions? The answer may be revealed in the near future.