Bitcoin Nodes and Article 38: The debate over BIP-110 deepens the divide within the community

The issue of expanding the capabilities to embed arbitrary data into the Bitcoin blockchain has sparked heated debates among network developers and users. Against this backdrop, the question of proper node management and protocol architecture is becoming increasingly relevant. Data shows that 583 out of 24,481 active Bitcoin nodes currently support Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110), accounting for 2.38% of the total, with Bitcoin Knots leading as the main implementation for this temporary initiative.

Bitcoin Core 30: When Removing Restrictions Leads to Conflict

The trigger for this split was the release of Bitcoin Core version 30, which removed a longstanding limit on OP_RETURN data size. Previously, this script, which allows users to embed arbitrary information into the blockchain, was limited to 83 bytes. The change was proposed in April 2025 via a pull request, which drew significant criticism from the community. When the update activated in October 2025, protests intensified, as many participants feared that uncontrolled removal of the limit would open the floodgates for excessive spam in the Bitcoin ledger.

OP_RETURN at the Center of the Debate: Spam or Legitimate Use?

BIP-110 offers a compromise solution: limit transaction output size to 34 bytes and set a new limit for OP_RETURN at 83 bytes, but on a temporary basis for one year with the possibility of extension or modification. However, the intensity of the discussion reveals deeper concerns: is OP_RETURN a legitimate feature or a tool for cluttering the network with unnecessary information? Critics argue that accumulating arbitrary data turns the blockchain into a data warehouse rather than remaining a financial ledger.

Hardware Requirements: Threat to Bitcoin’s Decentralization?

According to opponents of uncontrolled data expansion, increasing block sizes and storage requirements directly threaten the ability of ordinary users to run their own nodes. Unlike blockchains with extreme throughput demands requiring specialized hardware, Bitcoin has historically remained a platform accessible to consumer-grade computers. If hardware requirements continue to grow unabated, it could lead to network centralization in the hands of a few large data center operators, undermining Bitcoin’s fundamental value as a truly decentralized monetary system.

Matthew Cratter, a well-known advocate in the Bitcoin space, compared the situation to a parasitic plant overtaking a tree’s free space. In his view, spam could similarly suffocate Bitcoin’s architecture, displacing its core functionality. This metaphor summarizes concerns among those who see OP_RETURN as a potential long-term threat to network sustainability.

Two Positions in the Community: Where Is the Line of Reasonable Opposition?

However, the position is not unanimous. Jameson Lopp, an influential Bitcoin Core participant, advocates for unrestricted OP_RETURN. In his opinion, spam issues cannot be solved through protocol-level restrictions, as private node filters could neutralize any deliberate attempts to overload the network with arbitrary data. Thus, Lopp proposes relying on self-organization and architectural flexibility instead of strict administrative norms.

These two perspectives reflect a fundamental tension within Bitcoin: balancing protocol freedom with protection against abuse. The discussion in Article 38 of this debate will remain relevant as the community seeks solutions that satisfy both network purity advocates and defenders of absolute decentralization. For now, BIP-110 awaits further node votes and developer discussions.