A heated debate is unfolding within the Bitcoin community, as supporters of Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Knots disagree over the network’s future direction.
The controversy centers on Core’s planned removal of the 80-byte limit for OP_RETURN data in its upcoming v30 release, slated for October 2025.
This technical shift aims to allow greater flexibility for embedding data on the Bitcoin blockchain, but has sparked fierce opposition from the Knots camp.
Technical changes spark controversy
Bitcoin Core developers argue that lifting the OP_RETURN data cap will foster broader innovation, enabling use cases like digital art and document verification.
Jameson Lopp, a well-known Core advocate, stated:
“I truly detest politics. Thus I have little patience for those who try to impose traditional governance models onto Bitcoin. If you don’t like anarchy, you’re free to leave.”
Knots supporters, including Samson Mow and Luke Dashjr, warn that the proposal could turn Bitcoin into a dumping ground for non-financial transactions and spam, undermining its monetary focus. Dashjr cautioned:
“What do you think will happen now that Core is opening the floodgates to spam, and essentially endorsing it?… Any chance we have of making Bitcoin a success will go out the window – unless the community takes a clear stand and rejects the change.”
Ideology and network decentralization
The debate reflects deeper philosophical disagreements.
Core’s approach favors open usage as long as fees are paid, while Knots emphasizes anti-spam controls and network scalability.
This has led to a significant shift in node operator preferences, with Knots nodes now comprising about 17% of the network.
Concerns over fragmentation and resilience
With Core v30’s release on the horizon, concerns about a potential network split or rejected transactions are growing.
Dashjr raised alarms about declining full node usage:
“Bitcoin’s greatest threat to survival is that far too few people are using a full node. For Bitcoin to work, at least 85% of economic activity needs to do so.”
The outcome of this dispute may shape the future of Bitcoin’s decentralization and consensus, as the community weighs software diversity against the risks of fragmentation.
