Final week, alarm bells rang over a proposal to calm down information storage limitations by way of an operation code of Bitcoin script.
It was a deceptively minor change to the coverage of full node software program that make clear the company pursuits encroaching on Bitcoin’s technical growth.
As a substitute of rubber-stamping the concept, technical Bitcoiners sprang into motion, whipping up assist for his or her facet of the controversy. Critics revealed the business pursuits of firms like Citrea and an assortment of zero-knowledge (ZK) and Bitcoin digital machine (BitVM) firms which are pushing builders to lift information storage skills.
In a sly request to tweak the world’s hottest full node software program, Bitcoin Core, a number of builders appeared to imagine that lifting OP_RETURN’s datacarrier output restrict from 83 to tons of of 1000’s of bytes would obtain fast consensus and earn practically instant approval from Bitcoin Core maintainers.
Though subtle customers have all the time been in a position to privately broadcast massive OP_RETURN transactions to miners by way of Libre Relay or MARA Slipstream, Bitcoin Core’s standardness guidelines for queueing transactions throughout its default mempool denied OP_RETURN outputs exceeding 83 bytes.
Lifting its datacarrier cap would have modified an necessary standardness rule for transactions and allowed massive portions of non-financial information to propagate throughout the mempools of tens of 1000’s of Bitcoin Core nodes as operators progressively up to date their software program.
Pull request 32359: Re-introducing a failed 28130
Often a conservative developer, a self-empowered Peter Todd opened pull request (PR) 32359 on the request of Chaincode Labs’ Antoine Poinsot.
The GitHub remark part went viral, and inside hours, moderators began muting and censoring participation as fiery posts blamed builders and their company backers.
One critic chimed in, “The PR seems to anticipate some company’s mere intent. Are we now shapeshifting Bitcoin to whatever people publish they might be doing? Bitcoin has a purpose and it’s not appeasement.”
Moderators’ rarely-exercised energy of censorship on GitHub solely attracted extra consideration to the controversy. Observers even blamed Todd for utilizing PR 32359 to quietly re-introduce his PR 28130 that failed to attain consensus in 2023.
He used beneficiant language for his request, together with “uncap datacarrier by default” or “remove arbitrary restrictions on OP_RETURN by default.” In actuality, the proposal’s actual intent was to cease filtering massive portions of non-financial information — necessary context that appeared obscured by the technical description.
Many Bitcoin builders are against insurance policies that encourage using its restricted storage capabilities for non-financial info like footage, video games, enterprise information, or different types of media unrelated to BTC transactions.
A failed proposal, once more, with even much less configurability
Particularly, critics blamed Todd for re-introducing an much more beneficiant model of his 2023 code by withholding a config possibility.
Slightly than leaving the OP_RETURN datacarrier restrict as a configurable piece of code — similar to elevating the quantity from 83 to a number of tons of of 1000’s of bytes, and leaving the digits accessible for self-configuration — Todd merely eliminated the config code fully so as to stop customers from setting any customized quantity.
In different phrases, critics blamed Todd for making an attempt to slip a change by means of with a little bit of moist glue that will cement its dominance as soon as applied — stopping customers from modifying the quantity themselves on their very own node.
Briefly, it was disrespectful to Bitcoin Core’s ethos of consensus-based software program growth.
Based on Todd’s code, the change can be drastic: lifting the OP_RETURN datacarrier restrict from 83 bytes as much as slightly below the complete, 1MB restrict of a single block, much less different information — and disallowing Bitcoin Code node operators from having the choice to regulate that restrict manually.
This was notably offensive to the self-sovereign ethos of Bitcoin, which values the flexibility of node operators to decide on their very own mempool and transaction relay insurance policies.
The extra I look into it the more serious if will get.
Once more this is not a technical debate. It is simply dangerous actors pushing malicious adjustments into Bitcoin mendacity in regards to the results it would have.
Citrea *want* your mempool to tolerate their junk, and Core are decided to assist them with that by…
— Mechanic #FixTheFilters #300kb (@GrassFedBitcoin) Could 4, 2025
As tensions swirled, many individuals additionally blamed the company pursuits of the main spokesman for PR 32359, Jameson Lopp. Considered one of his firms, Citrea, has raised thousands and thousands of {dollars} from enterprise capitalists and may benefit from publishing larger-than-83 byte portions of knowledge by way of Bitcoin’s OP_RETURN datacarrier.
Citrea helps a collection of third-party functions and companies, together with altcoin token exchanges, DAOs, oracles, and yield-bearing stablecoins.
Extra company pursuits in bitcoin growth
There are, after all, different companies all for tweaking Bitcoin Core to higher go well with their pursuits.
For instance, Stacks Basis introduced a $500,000 Stacks Working Group meant to enhance BitVM’s safety. If the initiative labored, BitVM would supply computing assist for Bitcoin Layer 2 apps like Stacks (STX) itself, information roll-ups, trust-minimized bridges, and different tasks.
One critic summarized the unstated motivation for PR 32359: “On the OP_RETURN drama, what actually triggered this is the BitVM folks about to launch a protocol that needs to commit ~100 bytes of data and the current OP_RETURN limit being too restricted for that. So they ‘fixed’ that.”
Just a few critics even blamed Taproot Wizards for the incident, which raised $30 million to re-enable an operation code, OP_CAT, and publish numerous kinds of non-financial information into Bitcoin blocks.
OP_CAT is an unique operation code developed by Satoshi Nakamoto, who later turned it off on account of issues about errors. Efforts to deliver it again embrace BIP 347, which introduces OP_CAT alongside Tapscript.
Usually, Taproot Wizards have been a well-funded group arguing for faster, experimental adjustments to Bitcoin Core. Nonetheless, executives at Taproot Wizards clarified that neither of their NFT-like inscription collections, Taproot Wizards and Quantum Cats, used OP_RETURN to retailer image information.
As a substitute, these collections inscribed information utilizing separate, witness information.
Onchain exercise is useless. Seems to be like we’ll have to really work to make fascinating use circumstances folks need to use as a substitute of counting on crypto slop to replenish blocks. pic.twitter.com/1VAnseiBqD
— grubles (@notgrubles) Could 4, 2025
Storing “crypto slop” information on Bitcoin.
Ultimately, it’s seemingly that PR 32359 won’t achieve consensus and can expire in rivalry. Nonetheless, its shock introduction with secret motivations has raised consciousness in regards to the company curiosity searching for to affect Bitcoin Core builders.
Going ahead, the neighborhood would possibly ask deeper questions on who stands to learn essentially the most from an in any other case technical PR. One method to uncover these motivations is to comply with the cash.
