Bitcoin controversial proposal: OP_RETURN Data restriction regression freedom or intensify congestion?
転載元： chaincatcher
05/06/2025·8DCompiled by: GaryMa, Wu said blockchain
Recently, HashKey investment research director @jeffrey_hu sorted out the background and controversy of Bitcoin Core's proposal "Cancel OP_RETURN data restrictions". Wu said that he summarized and integrated the views of relevant people in the community, and compiled as follows.
Background review: OP_RETURN Data Restriction Dispute
OP_RETURN is an opcode in a Bitcoin script that is 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" and therefore do not add to the burden on the UTXO (unspent transaction output) set. The current default limit for Bitcoin Core is that the OP_RETURN data size is 80 bytes and the propagation of OP_RETURN transactions greater than 83 bytes is restricted by node policies (rather than consensus rules).
Developer Peter Todd proposed PR #32359, suggesting removing this restriction and deleting relevant configuration options (such as -datacarrier and -datacarriersize), which is equivalent to breaking the back path for nodes to hope to be able to configure independently, which has triggered heated discussion.
Comprehensive view
Supporters ' opinions:
● Existing restrictions are invalid because they can be bypassed by directly submitting miner mempool (such as MARA Slipstream) or unlimited node implementations (such as Libre Relay). (If the maximum OP_RETURN is known to have a maximum output of 79,870 bytes).
● Some users even use OP_RETURN to treat the link as a message board. There are also tools to help package and put them on the link (opreturnbot.com), as long as you pay the fee.
● Removal of restrictions may be more compatible with miner incentives, as miners can earn more income through competing for block space.
Opponents ' views:
● Removing restrictions will cause more non-transaction data to be written to the chain (such as shitcoin), squeezing block space and pushing up transaction fees.
● Although restrictions can be bypassed, node policies are still useful (such as limiting propagation, reducing the pressure on the network by spam data).
Personal detailed opinions collection:
Nothing Research partner @0x_Todd: Supports the removal of OP_RETURN 's 80-byte data limit, considering the current limit invalid, and removing the limit can bring several benefits, including a return to early Bitcoin design, reducing network burden, supporting ecological development, increasing miner income, and complying with liberal philosophy.
1. The Satoshi era has no restrictions, and it returns to classics
● Nakamoto era (early Bitcoin) OP_RETURN has no byte limit.
● In 2014, Bitcoin introduced a 40-byte limit (later increased to 80 bytes) with the goal of maintaining the “purity” of Bitcoin (for bookkeeping rather than data storage).
● 0x_Todd believes that removing the 80-byte limit is not "deviant", but a return to the classical design of the Nakamoto era, which is in line with the original spirit of Bitcoin.
2. The current limit is invalid, and can be easily bypassed
● The current 80-byte limit is useless, like a "10-centimeter-high fence wall", which cannot prevent users from storing large-sized data.
● Bypass methods include: using protocols such as Inscriptions and Runes to store data through multiple transactions.
● Bypass through node policies, such as using the Libre Relay client (the slogan is “Eliminate Paternalism in Bitcoin Core Relay Policy”). Peter Todd (proposer of PR #32359) is one of the core developers of Bitcoin Core, and his contributions ranks in the top ten. Supporting the removal of restrictions is a manifestation of "deparatism" and deserves support.
3. Reduce the burden on the Internet by inscriptions
● Inscriptions currently store data through "card bugs" (for example, bypassing the 80-byte limit through multiple transactions), increasing network burden.
● After removing the 80-byte limit, the inscription can directly store data through OP_RETURN, reducing unnecessary multiple transactions and reducing pressure on the network.
● Additional Note: Inscriptions are no longer popular at present, so this reason is just "adding the head" (secondary reason).
4. Providing additional income to miners in accordance with liberalism
● Removing restrictions can bring additional income to miners.
● Example: 0x_Todd mentioned a 7MB "super-large card bug" OP_RETURN block, and the sender paid a $3,600 handling fee.
● This shows the authenticity of market demand: some people are willing to pay for large-size data on the chain, while miners are willing to pack it.
● 0x_Todd adheres to a liberal stance and believes that this kind of "market-decided" behavior (you agree and I want to) should not be restricted and hard intervention is meaningless.
● Additional benefits: With the halving of Bitcoin every four years, miners' income decreases, allowing large-sized OP_RETURN transactions to increase revenue, incentivize miners to continue to invest in computing power, and consolidate the security of the Bitcoin network.
HashKey Investment Research Director @jeffrey_hu: Positive to oppose the removal of OP_RETURN 's 80-byte data limit. He believes that removing restrictions may have negative effects (such as non-transaction data squeezing block space), while emphasizing the importance of user freedom (preserving configuration options). He believes that support and opposition are more of a difference in concepts, and there is no absolute right or wrong in the short term. Regarding the four arguments of @0x_Todd, he correspondingly explained his views:
1. The Satoshi era has no restrictions, but it does not mean reasonable
● OP_RETURN of the Nakamoto era has no restrictions, but Satoshi's designs are not all reasonable. Many early designs later proved to be problematic (such as some modifications before and after the Block War).
● We cannot simply support the cancellation of restrictions on the grounds of "no restrictions in the Satoshi era". Satoshi's designs may not all be applicable to today.
2. Peter Todd's position and Bitcoin Core's role
● Removing the restrictions is just a proposal from the Bitcoin Core client, not a decision from the entire Bitcoin network.
● Peter Todd is a veteran developer whose philosophy tends to be "motivation compatibility" (a logic similar to Full-RBF: to guard against gentlemen but not villains), and proposed to remove restrictions in line with his style, but it is not surprising.
● Bitcoin Core's "paternal" practices (such as removing configuration options) are worth discussing and may limit user freedom.
3. Inscription problem: Removal of restrictions has limited meaning
● Remove the 80-byte limit to limited help for inscriptions.
● 80 bytes are not enough to store large files (such as pictures), but it is enough to allow the BRC-20 protocol to write JSON data (for issuing coins).
● Even if Bitcoin provides powerful functions (such as one-time seals, SegWit), there will always be people who issue coins on the chain in the "ugliest" way, and lifting restrictions cannot fundamentally solve this problem.
4. Miner income and liberalism: User freedom is more important
● The impact of miner income is complex (it may increase income, but it may also damage the "exclusive service" advantages of mining pools).
● Support liberalism: Users have the right to pay to go on the link, and OP_RETURN stores data more elegantly than inscriptions (two transactions + increased UTXO dust).
● But emphasizes user freedom: As a full-node operator, he needs to freely choose whether to spread this data (for example, the content of the message board has nothing to do with him).
● Criticize Bitcoin Core for removing configuration options (such as -datacarriersize and Full-RBF configurations), depriving users of their choice.
● If Bitcoin Core does not provide this freedom, he may switch to Bitcoin Knots or add transaction filters, but believes that this practice may be "in vain".
UTXO Stack founder @cryptcipher: Supports lifting restrictions, thinking that instead of letting people bypass it, it is better to open it directly. When it comes to ordi and other protocols writing over 80 bytes of data through multiple transactions, removing the limit can reduce this "useless work" and UTXO dust.
Fiamma Lianchuang@cyimonio: Oppose it, believing that some Bitcoin L2 projects (such as storing state data on Bitcoin) just treat Bitcoin as the data availability (DA) layer, which is of little significance and is a "spending big money to do small things."
Consensus rules and node policies
"Since you can go around it? Is the node limit useful?"
It is useful, but to understand this problem, we should start with OP_RETURN and the "consensus rules" and "node policies" involved.
OP_RETURN is an opcode in the Bitcoin scripting language. Its function is to immediately terminate the execution of the script and mark the output as "provably unspendable".
The behavior of OP_RETURN ( terminates script execution and marks output as non-spendable ) is the core rule of the Bitcoin protocol and is part of the consensus rule. Consensus rules only care about "whether it is not cost-effective" and do not care about the specific size of the accompanying data.
The limitation on the specific size of data attached to OP_RETURN belongs to the node policy. Nodes can do a lot because nodes themselves can decide how to process the transaction data they get.
● Before going on the chain: Before block packaging, restrict whether this transaction can be spread on the P2P network. Bitcoin Core used to not propagate OP_RETURN transactions greater than 83 bytes, but if such transactions exist in a new block because they comply with consensus rules, the node will also admit that the transaction is valid and the chain will not forked.
● After being on the link, the node can also make a difference, such as automatically discarding the data accompanied by OP_RETURN to reduce its own storage overhead.
Possible impacts and suggestions
Positive : May increase miner income and support Bitcoin eco-projects (such as Runes, Alkanes and sidechains).
Negative : It causes crowding of block space for ordinary Bitcoin users.
Miners’ attitudes are uncertain : on the one hand, intensified competition in block space may increase revenue; on the other hand, mining pools may not like it because the "exclusive service" advantage of non-standard transaction packaging will decrease.
Personal advice :
If the PR is passed but the user doesn't like it, you can choose to run more restrictive clients (such as Bitcoin Knots) or older versions. Revisiting Bitcoin Core's role (weighting between security patches, node policies, and consensus rules) and consider choosing a client that is more in line with personal philosophies.
Reference link:
https://x.com/jeffrey_hu/status/1917491946609860991
