Bitcoin Core Developer Proposes Lifting OP_RETURN Size Limit, Sparks Debate
1min read Bitcoin Core developer Peter Todd has proposed removing the arbitrary size limits on OP_RETURN, a move that has sparked intense debate within the Bitcoin community. OP_RETURN is an operation code that allows small data payloads to be embedded in Bitcoin transactions. Todd's proposal, submitted as #32359 on GitHub, aims to lift the current 80-byte limit on the amount of data that can be stored using OP_RETURN.
Todd, a candidate for one of Satoshi Nakamoto’s theories, argues that this change would simplify Bitcoin’s codebase and improve efficiency without compromising the network's security. He points out that OP_RETURN outputs are unspendable and do not bloat the Unspent Transaction Output (UTXO) set, which all Bitcoin full nodes must track for transaction validation. Todd also notes that the current restrictions can be easily bypassed through direct substitution and forks of Bitcoin Core.
Formalizing higher limits, according to Todd, would reflect existing practices and benefit use cases such as sidechains and cross-chain bridges. However, many in the Bitcoin community view this proposal as a dangerous shift toward non-monetary use cases for the pioneer cryptocurrency. This debate echoes the 2014 OP_RETURN Wars, when spam concerns led developers to reduce the data cap from 80 to 40 bytes before raising it again. That era saw services like Veriblock flood the chain with data, resulting in increased block sizes and transaction fees.
Ask Aime: "Will Bitcoin's OP_RETURN limit increase disrupt the blockchain?"
Critics of the proposal, such as Willem S, founder of Botanix Labs, argue that sidechain builders should not influence Bitcoin Core. Willem believes that changing standard rules to make development easier sets a troubling precedent, especially when workarounds already exist. Jason Hughes, who works in development and engineering at Ocean Mining, accuses developers of steamrolling dissent and ignoring broader user concerns. Hughes warns that the change could push Bitcoin toward becoming a worthless altcoin.
Despite the backlash, some community members are optimistic about the potential benefits of the proposal. Karbon, a popular user on X, argues that catering to applications such as sidechains and bridges drives more transactions, which is beneficial for the network. This sentiment is based on the assumption that people already bypass the limit. The debate has also stirred broader philosophical objections, with some comparing it to the ongoing issues faced by Ethereum.
Amidst the technical discussions, the social impact of the proposal is harder to contain. The controversy has amplified long-simmering concerns over developer centralization and the risk of alienating users who believe Bitcoin should remain a minimal, sovereign monetary protocol. Whether the proposal moves forward or stalls, the debate reveals the growing tension between Bitcoin’s purist roots and the pressure to evolve. 
