If you really want to understand the Bitcoin Core debate, I suggest you go and read the actual Pull Request on Github.
That’s exactly what I’ve done - and this thread will break it down for you. 🧵
That’s exactly what I’ve done - and this thread will break it down for you. 🧵
Context: This PR proposes changes to Bitcoin Core by removing default limits on OP_RETURN - a part of transactions used to store data. Currently, Core only allows a small OP_RETURN per transaction. The change would allow much larger OP_RETURNs, making Core more permissive in what it relays.
If you open the PR on GitHub, you’ll see a table showing which reviewers support or oppose the change. Clicking their names reveals their full comments.
🔴 Concept NACK = Disagrees with the overall idea or purpose of the change.
🟢 Concept ACK = Agrees with the general idea or motivation behind the change.
🔴 Concept NACK = Disagrees with the overall idea or purpose of the change.
🟢 Concept ACK = Agrees with the general idea or motivation behind the change.
Here’s MY summary of each side. These are the most commonly repeated points I have seen, though there may be other arguments I’ve missed:
🔴 NACK (Against Removing Limits):
This side argues that removing limits on OP_RETURN invites more spam and non-monetary data into Bitcoin blocks, which could crowd out legitimate financial transactions. They emphasize that Bitcoin's primary purpose is money, not a cheap data-storage platform, and maintaining these limits helps protect its economic integrity and efficiency. They also argue that user-configurable settings (like -datacarriersize) are valuable tools for node sovereignty and should not be removed.
This side argues that removing limits on OP_RETURN invites more spam and non-monetary data into Bitcoin blocks, which could crowd out legitimate financial transactions. They emphasize that Bitcoin's primary purpose is money, not a cheap data-storage platform, and maintaining these limits helps protect its economic integrity and efficiency. They also argue that user-configurable settings (like -datacarriersize) are valuable tools for node sovereignty and should not be removed.
For example, see Concept NACK comments from Seccour, chrisguida, and wizkid057.
They argue that loosening limits caves to spammers and encourages abuse of Bitcoin as a data dump. All emphasize the need to fight spam, not accommodate it.
They argue that loosening limits caves to spammers and encourages abuse of Bitcoin as a data dump. All emphasize the need to fight spam, not accommodate it.
🟢 ACK (For Removing Limits):
Supporters believe that arbitrary data storage on Bitcoin is inevitable, and trying to suppress it only leads to more harmful workarounds - like securing data in other ways or doing private deals with miners. They argue that OP_RETURN is the least damaging method - it’s small, provably unspendable, and avoids polluting the UTXO set. By relaxing limits, Core can guide data usage toward the cleanest and most transparent path, while discouraging more disruptive alternatives.
Supporters believe that arbitrary data storage on Bitcoin is inevitable, and trying to suppress it only leads to more harmful workarounds - like securing data in other ways or doing private deals with miners. They argue that OP_RETURN is the least damaging method - it’s small, provably unspendable, and avoids polluting the UTXO set. By relaxing limits, Core can guide data usage toward the cleanest and most transparent path, while discouraging more disruptive alternatives.
For example, see Concept ACK comments from murchandamus and eragmus.
They argue that arbitrary data use is inevitable, and OP_RETURN is the least harmful option. One highlights reduced node traffic and less miner centralization; the other sees it as a common-sense change to align Core with reality.
They argue that arbitrary data use is inevitable, and OP_RETURN is the least harmful option. One highlights reduced node traffic and less miner centralization; the other sees it as a common-sense change to align Core with reality.
I highly recommend reading the comments yourself:
.
And I will leave you with a question. Would you NACK or ACK this?github.com/bitcoin/bitcoi…
.
And I will leave you with a question. Would you NACK or ACK this?github.com/bitcoin/bitcoi…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
