BIP-110: The controversy over arbitrary data reshapes Bitcoin consensus

At the heart of the Bitcoin community, a technical battle is unfolding that reveals deep tensions. Since the controversial deployment of Bitcoin Core 30 in October 2025, which removed the originally fixed OP_RETURN limit of 83 bytes, debates have raged over the direction the network should take. In response, an alternative proposal has emerged: BIP-110, which seeks to reintroduce a strict framework for arbitrary data embedded in the blockchain.

A community reaction to the removed limits

Bitcoin Core version 30 marked a controversial turning point. This update, which was proposed for the first time in April 2025, sparked widespread opposition. By removing the OP_RETURN data cap, developers have opened the door to a proliferation of inscriptions and non-essential data on the Bitcoin ledger. BIP-110 is presented as an attempt to correct this, aiming to cap transaction outputs at 34 bytes and restore an 83-byte limit for the OP_RETURN code.

Growing adoption of BIP-110 among nodes

Numbers indicate significant mobilization. To date, 583 nodes out of 24,481 – or 2.38% – are already running the BIP-110 protocol, with Bitcoin Knots serving as the main software implementation for this temporary fork. This increasing adoption reflects the concern of a substantial portion of the network regarding perceived risks. BIP-110 is presented as a temporary measure lasting one year, with the possibility of modification or extension depending on the evolution of community debate.

The paradox of spam and decentralization

The real issue transcends mere technical considerations. Critics of the change implemented by Bitcoin Core 30 emphasize that increasing arbitrary data significantly raises the operational costs of running a Bitcoin node. Unlike high-performance blockchains requiring specialized hardware, Bitcoin has always prided itself on being able to operate on standard equipment. However, if requirements become too high, only entities with substantial resources could maintain the infrastructure. This would directly threaten Bitcoin’s fundamental value as a truly decentralized monetary network.

Matthew Kratter, a lawyer and influential figure in Bitcoin, embodied this concern by comparing the phenomenon to a parasitic plant invading a tree – spam could similarly undermine the very structure of the protocol.

Two irreconcilable perspectives

Conversely, Jameson Lopp, an established Bitcoin Core contributor, advocates a different approach. He argues that filters are ineffective at blocking spam on the network, and that the absence of an OP_RETURN limit offers greater flexibility for future application developers. This divergence of views crystallizes a broader debate: should we optimize for technical purity or for decentralized innovation?

For now, BIP-110 remains an alternative proposal, but its growing support among validators signals that consensus on this issue is far from being achieved.