Debate Over Bitcoin Output Limits: How Output Device Restrictions Spark Controversy

Support for Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110) continues to grow among node operators, reaching 2.38% of the total network. The proposal, designed to limit transaction output sizes and related output devices, has become the hottest topic in the Bitcoin community, sparking in-depth debates about balancing privacy, efficiency, and network decentralization.

Increasing Support for BIP-110 Among Node Operators

According to Cointelegraph data, currently 583 out of 24,481 nodes run BIP-110, with Bitcoin Knots being the main software implementation supporting this soft fork. The proposal aims to limit transaction output sizes to 34 bytes and set the OP_RETURN data limit at 83 bytes during a one-year trial period. This mechanism is intended as a temporary step, with the possibility of extension or modification afterward, as noted on the official GitHub proposal page.

The Root of Controversy: Radical Changes in Bitcoin Core v30

The controversy began when Bitcoin Core released version 30, which removed the previous OP_RETURN limit. This change, first proposed in Q2 2025 and launched later that year, faced strong opposition from the community. Critics warned that removing arbitrary data limits could open the door to spam on the Bitcoin ledger, increasing storage burdens required to run nodes.

Impact of Unlimited Output Devices on Bitcoin Decentralization

Main concerns focus on how increasing output device and storage requirements could undermine Bitcoin’s core value proposition. Unlike high-capacity blockchains requiring specialized infrastructure, Bitcoin is designed so that nodes can run on consumer-grade computers. However, if technical requirements continue to rise—particularly in storage space and processing power of output devices—this could create higher barriers to entry for new participants, threatening the network’s decentralization, which is central to Bitcoin’s philosophy.

Matthew Kratter, a prominent Bitcoin supporter, makes an interesting analogy comparing the impact of unlimited data to parasitic plants overtaking a tree, suggesting that spam could gradually weaken Bitcoin’s structure and health. This perspective reflects community concerns that slow degradation may be imperceptible but ultimately fatal.

Two Opposing Views on OP_RETURN

On the other hand, Jameson Lopp, an influential Bitcoin Core contributor, supports unlimited OP_RETURN limits. His argument is fundamental: filter mechanisms are ineffective at preventing spam on the network because they can be bypassed with alternative methods. According to Lopp, restrictions only create an illusion of security without providing real technical solutions.

These two perspectives highlight the fundamental tension in Bitcoin’s evolution: between maintaining ease of access and decentralization versus accommodating more diverse functionality. As support for BIP-110 and output device requirements continue to grow, the Bitcoin community remains divided in seeking optimal solutions that meet the needs of all parties.