Developers are at war over a controversial change to Bitcoin Core

Since Peter Todd formalized a proposal to remove data limits via OP_Return's datacarrier outputs

A heated debate has erupted among Bitcoin developers over a controversial change to the dominant software for full nodes, Bitcoin Core. Since Peter Todd formalized a proposal to remove data limits via OP_Return’s datacarrier outputs, the temperature of discussions rose to incendiary levels on X, GitHub, and the Google Group mailing list.

Less than 48 hours since Protos wrote about this topic, disagreement among developers has skyrocketed. Indeed, it seems like almost every Bitcoin influencer on X and GitHub wants to have their say about what is ostensibly innocuous increase to OP_Return’s 83-byte data limit.

The hashtag #FixTheFilters is trending, Bitcoin maximalists are pulling receipts on altcoin promoters, and startups are vying for technological support for their project. In short, the discussion is chaotic and enthralling.

After Peter Todd opened the discussion about pull request (PR) 32359, at least four camps have formed around distinct viewpoints.

First, the group advocating for a higher OP_Return data limit is trying to explain the limit’s ineffectiveness and its futility amid plentiful alternatives for data storage elsewhere within blocks.

Second, the opposition is arguing for the limit to remain — usually by alleging that storing arbitrary data via OP_Return violates Satoshi Nakamoto’s intent and the purpose of Bitcoin as a financial network.

Third, onlookers, as well as members of the above camps, are criticising the good faith of interlocutors’ arguments, producing historical receipts and airing dirty laundry of supposedly ulterior motives.

Finally, otherwise undecided observers are concerned with the moderation and platforming of the debate itself, blaming administrators for censoring speech.

Read More: Luke Dashjr calls Ordinals a spam ‘bug’ that should be ‘fixed’

Four camps argue about relaxing OP_Return for non-financial dataA member of the first camp, Chaincode Labs’ Antoine Poinsot, suggested lifting the OP_Return data limit. Not only did Poinsot note that arbitrary data storage is available elsewhere within blocks, he also highlighted that OP_Return data doesn’t benefit from the SegWit discount.

In other words, if people want to inscribe media via OP_Return, they have to pay fully-priced transaction fees.

Leading the opposition from the second camp, Luke Dashjr and Bitcoin Mechanic explained why the limit should not only remain in place but tighten further. In their typical, fiery communication style, their camp argued for filtering “spam” data from Bitcoin’s ledger and protecting the network as a non-fiat alternative that resists corporate subversion.

Someone pushing for a major change to Bitcoin is affiliated with a company whose current exploit of Bitcoin was the motivation for the change.Pointing this out on the github discussion has resulted in me being banned.https://t.co/VAaNByBE5o

— Bitcoin Mechanic (@TheChainCoin) August 17, 2023

Exemplifying the third camp, someone flagged Jameson Lopp’s conflict of interest in an attempt to discredit his argument for data storage leniency. “I think it would be appropriate for you to disclose that you’re one of the VCs backing Citrea,” they pointed out.

Citrea is a for-profit project that publishes zero-knowledge (ZK) data onto Bitcoin’s blockchain and could benefit from lifting OP_Return’s 83-byte threshold.

Others criticised founders and advisors to Taproot Wizards, including pseudonymous Bitcoin influencers who advise the project like Shinobi and Rijndael, due to the project’s support for non-financial inscriptions.

Finally, members of the fourth camp criticised the moderation of the discussion itself on GitHub. They likened the moderators to a “cabal of self-appointed politicians” who flagged comments as abusive simply because they pointed out subtext behind arguments.

Spamming or storing data: A matter of perspectiveNon-financial data storage on Bitcoin has existed since the genesis block. Satoshi inscribed a newspaper headline into the first block, and Luke Dashjr inscribed Catholic prayers to the ledger in 2014.

As a matter of norms-setting for modern use, however, Bitcoin Core could be in the process of relaxing a standard relaying protocol that previously limited OP_RETURN data to 83 bytes.

Rather than a few curiosities of early experimentation, this week’s change could allow a considerable quantity of non-financial data to relay easily between nodes. Thereafter, the relaxed limit would become commonplace for mining mempools to estimate fees and prioritise transactions.

This week’s change, therefore, could have lasting effects on block production, templates, and the proliferation of UTXOs.

The debate about compressing pictures, movies, video games, and other non-financial data onto Bitcoin’s ledger erupted a few years ago during an exploit of Taproot for on-chain data inscriptions.

Once again, the same debate is roaring back over this week’s controversial proposal