Bitcoin could allow more data in multiple OP_RETURN. A technical and political debate is enlivened

By Canuto

A change in Bitcoin’s policy could allow more chain data. NFTS in chain, Snapshots of states of other chains, new protocols within the Bitcoin, social networks and incense messaging, spam? Or actually nothing has changed as some developers say.
***

Bitcoin Core considers eliminating the limit of 80 bytes for OP_RETURN
The proposal would allow multiple exits OP_RETURN By transaction
The debate between efficiency, revenue for miners and risk of Bloat opens

The developer Peter Todd has submitted a proposal to eliminate one of the oldest restrictions in the Bitcoin Core retransmission policy: the limit of 80 bytes for the data embedded in OP_RETURN. Although this limit is not part of the consensus rules, it has served for years as a preventive barrier against spam and the abusive use of the network.

The proposal also seeks to eliminate the restriction that prevents having more than one exit OP_RETURN By transaction. If implemented, it would allow users to transmit and record much larger data sets directly in the Bitcoin blockchain, as long as the total block limit of 4 million units is not exceeded.

Context: Why did there exist a limit?

In 2014, Bitcoin Core introduced this limit in response to the growing use of OP_RETURN On the part of projects such as Counterparty, which tried to store arbitrary data in chain. The objective was to preserve the monetary function of Bitcoin, avoid unnecessary growth of block size and minimize the risk of spam.

Since then, developers and users have resorted to more sophisticated solutions, such as the use of Taproot and the field Witness of transactions, which allows you to store data with a 75 % discount on the computed weight for the block. However, these solutions require greater technical complexity and multiple steps.

What would really change?

The proposal does not alter any consensus rule. Nodes who wish to maintain current restrictions could do it without problem. However, default policy nodes would begin to broadcast and undermine transactions containing larger and more multiple data OP_RETURN.

Data storage in OP_RETURN remains more expensive than in witnesswith a cost of 4 units per Byte. This means that, in practice, users who register large images or files, such as those of the Ordinals ecosystem, will continue to prefer inscriptions in the Witness.

On the other hand, the most benefited would be developers of second -layer solutions, state channels, bridges between chains and timestamping systems that require compromising small volumes of data directly and without complications.

Benefits and risks of change

Among the benefits, the simplification of the transaction design, the elimination of fragmented solutions and a possible increase in the income of the miners, since the data transmitted would pay rates without discounts. Besides, OP_RETURN It does not contribute to the growth of the UTXO set, since the outputs are unusable by design.

However, critics warn about the possibility of aggravating existing problems, such as the block of blocks and the use of the chain to store questionable content. It is also feared that, if the volume of this data increases significantly, it can generate pressure in the competition for blocks in blocks, affecting regular monetary transactions.

Another sensitive point is the ideological debate that revives this proposal: should Bitcoin be only a monetary network or can the data of data publication also fulfill?

A compromise solution?

Some propose an intermediate solution: moderately increase the current limit to values such as 512 bytes or 1 kilobyte. This would allow to improve legitimate use cases without encouraging the publication of large files. Likewise, nodes and miners operators could adjust their own policies with personalized parameters, such as -datacarrierlimit.

This approach seeks to balance innovation with the conservation of the shared resources of the network, keeping the door open to development without compromising long -term sustainability.

Conclusion

Peter Todd’s proposal does not change Bitcoin’s fundamental rules, but it could have a significant impact on the way the chain is used to store and verify data. The balance between technical efficiency, economic income for miners and abuse protection will be key in the debate that is now opened.

While the complete elimination of the limit can be attractive to certain use cases, a moderate solution seems, for now, the most prudent path to avoid greater polarization within the ecosystem.

Original image of Diariobitcoin, created with artificial intelligence, for free use, licensed under public domain.

This article was written by an AI content editor and reviewed by a human editor to guarantee quality and precision.

WARNING: Diariobitcoin offers informative and educational content on various topics, including cryptocurrencies, AI, technology and regulations. We do not provide financial advice. Cryptactive investments are high risk and may not be adequate for all. Investigate, consult an expert and verify the applicable legislation before investing. I could lose all its capital.