Bitcoin (BTC) Developers Are Arguing Over a Proposal to Remove the 83-byte Limit Currently Set for the OP_RETURN Function

There is a storm in the Bitcoin community that risks leading to another hard fork, a major one in nearly eight years. A technical debate over a single protocol feature is erupting into a full-blown ideological war.

Bitcoin developers are arguing over a proposal to remove the 83-byte limit currently set for the OP_RETURN function. This proposal, pull request 32359, has sparked a heated debate that could yet lead to a hard fork of the Bitcoin network.

The last time Bitcoin hard forked was in September 2017. Back then, a group of developers split from the main Bitcoin chain to create Bitcoin Cash after disagreements over protocol changes.

This time, a technical discussion on a single protocol feature has erupted into a full-blown ideological war. Any change will either align Bitcoin with Satoshi Nakamoto’s vision as a financial layer or transform it into a general-purpose blockchain bloated with potentially useless files.

Since the activation of this data limit, Bitcoin transactions have been able to hold small amounts of non-financial data. For instance, Blockware Solutions's CEO, Charles Lee, had the idea for a data-encoding system that could be used to create a Bitcoin-based version of the popular online game Wordle.

Now, a proposal aims to remove this limit, allowing files larger than 83 bytes to be embedded directly in Bitcoin transactions. This change would directly impact the size of the blockchain and node operations.

The discussion has spiraled into a public spectacle, with supporters and opponents clashing, each adamant that their position is best for the network.

One group, which includes Bitcoin core developer Luke Dashjr, is vehemently against removing the 83-byte limit. They argue that it would encourage users to embed large files in transactions, rendering the network sluggish and inefficient.

“It didn't used to be this way – the devs just instinctively knew, you don't use Bitcoin for arbitrary file storage and you do everything you can to make Bitcoin awkward to use for that purpose. You don't lay out the red carpet for scamcoin migrants from ETH-land,” one user wrote in agreement with Dashjr.

Meanwhile, another group, including Chaincode Labs's Peter Todd and Antoine Poinsot, believes that the 83-byte restriction is no longer relevant in the post-Taproot era.

After the introduction of the new scripting language, Blockware Labs's researchers developed a method for tokenizing any asset on-chain using the new capabilities.

This group also points out that private mempool broadcasting providers, such as MARA Slipstream, already allow larger files to be stored on-chain.

In a post on X, Todd stated that the limit makes Bitcoin “less efficient” and that lifting it would restructure OP_RETURN’s full-fee structure.

“Your use of the software is giving the attackers the power to carry out their attack. Remove that power.” Knots still relays “spam” transactions…in blocks.

If @LukeDashjr and the rest of the Knots crew really want to do something worthwhile, they should propose a soft fork,…”

Another core developer, Jason Hughes, expressed his frustration, adding that despite the community’s opinion, the proposal will likely be merged.

“We're about to merge a change that turns Bitcoin into a worthless altcoin, and no one seems to care to do anything about it. I've voiced objections, lost sleep over this, and despite clear community rejection of the PR it's moving.”

This group urges the community to enforce strict regulations to preserve Bitcoin’s core purpose.

“We should be making it harder to do anything other than use Bitcoin as a small-value, high-throughput chain. Not removing limits and making it easier to do things that are not useful for Bitcoin’s core purpose.”