Bitcoin Nodes Support BIP-110 as the Battle for OP_RETURN Grows

The Bitcoin community is divided over a key proposal aimed at limiting the use of arbitrary data on the network. Currently, nodes running BIP-110 account for 2.38% of the total, according to Cointelegraph, which represents 583 nodes out of 24,481 active on the network. This indicator reflects underlying tensions regarding the future direction of Bitcoin and how nodes position themselves concerning technical issues that affect decentralization.

The Progress of BIP-110 Among Network Nodes

Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110) seeks to reestablish specific limits on the data that can be included in transactions. Its main goal is to set the maximum output size to 34 bytes and limit the OP_RETURN script to 83 bytes. Bitcoin Knots has become the most used node software implementation to support this temporary soft fork, which is planned to operate for one year with the possibility of extension or modification later, according to the details on the proposal’s GitHub page.

Bitcoin Core 30 and the OP_RETURN Limit Controversy

The turning point in this debate came several months ago, in October 2025, when Bitcoin Core version 30 was released, removing the 83-byte OP_RETURN limit that had been in place. This decision, originating from a controversial pull request initially proposed in April 2025, raised alarms within the community. Critics argued that removing this limit would open the door to spam of arbitrary data, which in turn would increase storage costs for those running Bitcoin nodes.

Centralization vs. Decentralization: The Concern of Bitcoin Nodes

The real concern among BIP-110 supporters lies in the long-term implications for network nodes. Unlike other blockchains that require specialized hardware, Bitcoin has been characterized by allowing its nodes to run on standard consumer computers. However, an increase in storage requirements could force the acquisition of more powerful equipment, creating entry barriers that could lead to greater network centralization. Bitcoin advocate Matthew Kratter compared this situation to a parasitic plant choking a tree, suggesting that spam could similarly compromise Bitcoin’s decentralized structure.

Diverging Views on the Future of OP_RETURN

Not everyone in the community shares this perspective. Jameson Lopp, a prominent Bitcoin Core contributor, defends the absence of limits on OP_RETURN, arguing that filters are ineffective in preventing network spam. This opposing stance reflects a deeper debate about which measures are truly effective and what consequences they could have on the Bitcoin ecosystem. As nodes continue to position themselves, the community watches closely to see how this technical discussion shaping the future of the protocol will evolve.