Let’s talk a bit about OP_RETURN.

First: what is it?

It’s an opcode that allows arbitrary data to be stored in a transaction in a way that makes it unspendable.

Simply put: you can use it to embed things like a message, a hash, or even an image in #Bitcoin.

In Bitcoin, by consensus, there are no restrictions on OP_RETURN. These are fully valid transactions under the protocol. What blocks them today is a local policy in Bitcoin Core, not the protocol itself.

So this proposal isn’t a philosophical shift — it’s an alignment between Core's standardness rules and the consensus rules.

Calling it a “cultural change” ignores that the protocol already allows it.

What exists today is a technical and policy inconsistency.

Whether we like “spam” or not (meaning anything not strictly monetary), the reality is that it exists and will continue to exist.

This proposal simply provides a cleaner path for it to happen.

It doesn’t enable it — it’s already enabled.

This isn’t about “welcoming” anyone, nobody needs permission to use Bitcoin, if someone wants to embed data, they will, the only thing we can influence is how they do it and how much collateral damage it causes.

The current restrictions haven’t stopped anything, they’ve only pushed abusers to use more harmful methods like Taproot fake scripts, witness stuffing, etc.

All of it worse for the system than using OP_RETURN.

Let’s be honest:

– There is no way to filter “spam” 100%.

– Filters can be bypassed.

– Miners can include whatever they want.

– If someone is willing to pay the fee, they’ll do it — today or tomorrow.

So what’s the most pragmatic option?

➡️ Align standardness with consensus.

➡️ Offer the least harmful path.

➡️ Acknowledge technical reality and minimize its impact.

It’s not a perfect solution — but it’s the least damaging one.

And most importantly, it’s the only one aligned with Bitcoin’s protocol.

If you see this as a philosophical shift, it’s because you never truly understood how Bitcoin’s consensus works.

We’re not opening a door, the door has always been open.

Agreed there is no way to reduce spam 100%, but we can reduce it. You can always go out of band for a transaction (including miners doing what they want), but that comes at a premium.

Block space is finite, as it should be. A monetary premium for transactions absolutely and if someone wants to be in a non-normal consensus following transaction they will always find a way.

Aligning standards with consensus? I'd like to understand why there was a filter in the first place? By it being there, doesn't that mean that the filter works? By it being removed doesn't that mean that the filter works?

Not sure where I stand on the matter yet, but I'm definitely more conservative in changes being made to clients/nodes (why I run v27 and wait at least 6 months to upgrade). Correct me if I am wrong but this was always configurable, just no one took time to open up the limit, this just forces the hand and removes the ability to configure it now.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.