There's been lots of debate about Core v30 removing the OP_RETURN size/count policy defaults, so I ran the numbers for the latest mempool research report:
mempool research
OP_RETURN Report
A data driven analysis of OP_RETURN usage on bitcoin, revealing that the overwhelming majority of OP_RETURNs are standard, nonstandard usage has no...
There were three big waves of OP_RETURN usage: 2019, 2024, 2025. Nearly all standard transactions. The nonstandard ones are so rare you can hardly see them on the chart.
The 2019 Veriblock wave actually put more data on-chain than anything since. People talk about recent OP_RETURN usage like it's unprecedented, but surprisingly it isn't.
The important thing is that the spikes in nonstandard OP_RETURNs were in Mar 2024, May 2025, Aug 2025. All before v30 shipped in November 2025. The rate hasn't gone up since. At all. In fact it's come down
Runes transactions were standard under the old rules and would even still be standard for #BIP110 (the proposal that's supposedly aims to curb data embedding). If these guys are serious about stopping data they should block runes.
TL;DR: v30 recognised what was already occasionally happening on-chain. Nonstandard OP_RETURNs are vanishingly rare, haven't increased post-v30, and the current wave is already cooling off. The data doesn't support the panic.
Read the full report linked below 👇
mempool research
OP_RETURN Report
A data driven analysis of OP_RETURN usage on bitcoin, revealing that the overwhelming majority of OP_RETURNs are standard, nonstandard usage has no...
Replies (36)
Interesting. Still not updating my node 😤
Appreciate the research though in case it wasn’t obvious 🫡
It’s not about that. It’s that little greedy weaklings are unilaterally messing with the code for personal gain. That takes away #bitcoin s panacea status as being incorruptible and immutable. That makes Bitcoin useless as money.
Consistency would be an attribute to topple central banking.
Consistency in aim
Consistency in code
Every time a change like this is made, (what problem did the original increase solve for?) a little faith is lost.
Oh that's right, if we don't support it, we don't have to run that node version.
But of course we get told nodes do not matter.
Bitcoin is the best shot to end central banking, changes like this make it more difficult to achieve that.
I think this is missing the point. At least in my view the issue is not just about what is happening today, but what can happen in the future.
We should not let a single team control the destiny of Bitcoin. It is healthy to see people stepping up to provide an alternative.
so there was no reason at all for v30 to force the removal of the default OP_RETURN limit and enrage the community 🤷♂️
v30 has stirred up a hornet's nest triggering a natural reaction to protect the queen chain 🐝
Instead of questioning why there are "non-standard" op_returns, you still send money to stupid shit like this.
@ODELL you are the biggest cuck fr.
just becuz the mempool hasnt gone to 2019 levels does not mean that it wont it very likely will again and those who run v30 will be the reason why it can continue . its really not that hard to run knots+bip110 and signal for a clearer mempool . I really hope more node runners take the leap to securing the mission of bitcoin which is to be for monetary data not jpegs inscriptions and tokens
Great charts, thanks for sharing.
Doesn’t this also suggest that the #1 touted reason for removing the relay limit - to get people to use the trash can instead of bloat the UTXO set - has been proven to be a useless and inconsequential argument though?
I appreciate the data collection regardless, but this doesn’t seem to a win on either side of the debate. Actually sort of a lose lose imo. The singular touted “benefit” is proving to be nonsense.
View quoted note →i hate everything about all of this. fuck the fuckers. core and knots. they seem to have sold or lost all their coins anyway, do they even care about bitcoin or are they just a bunch of butthurt c++ nocoiners.
Looks like Core got fooled by fake market demand.
"I'm cool with modifications to bitcoin that allows easy storage of non moneyetary data on the blockchain, I did the numbers".
All it takes is one controversial image.
I’ve been in bitcoin for like a decade and idk what op-return even is.
“Nobody understands the fiancial system” -J Epstein, “the money guy”
Very interesting to have data on this.
Is that omni USDT related?
Bitcoin coloured coins are imho underused.
View quoted note →Runes are not being addressed by BIP110 is a good point. People need drama; the data talk is too dry for them.
Those transactions side stepped the mempool and entered the blockchain by being submitted directly to miners via API. If Slipstream isn't a centralizing attack on bitcoin I don't know what is. Luckily wallets hadn't been built for it, and V30 removes the incentive to do it.
You can't leave those out without a hard fork. Even then, other ways will be found, and then what, fork again? The (non)solution sounds worse than the symptom
Err, so why the desperate push to remove the OP_RETURN limit in the face of significant opposition then?
compact blocks makes your node use less bandwidth. it doesn't work properly when you ignore a lot of valid transactions in the mempool that are just going to be confirmed soon anyway. it works properly when your node's mempool policy mirrors the actual consensus rules. you are not protecting yourself from eventually storing and relaying the data, you are just damaging the compact blocks functionality to your own detriment.
From the outside it just doesnt make a lot of sense to wanting to be able to store lots of non-monetary data on the hardest money blockchain. If your data shows that it doesnt happen a lot, lets just shut it off before it becomes an attack vector to the network.
I also can understand how it comes in waves, as it is more like a meme/altcoin type of activity where people pump and dump their jpeg projects for a few months and move on. Not sure if we want to bring ETH-shenanigans to BTC.
They were NOT submitted to miners.
That's nonsense. I can confirm as someone that actually runs a node that bandwidth and CPU usage are considerably less running a knots node than it was with core. What you are arguing is nodes should just follow miners. That's the wrong way around, miners work for the network, nodes signal what we want to see in the network. I will filter my mempool how I want not how compromised core devs paymasters want me to.
👀🤔
Core can unilaterally do whatever the fuck they want with Core. You on the other hand can choose to run whatever the fuck you want. Same as it ever was.
Response of a 13 year old…
This is a disingenuous argument, BIP110 does more than restore the op_return filter, it also fixes the taproot inscriptions fiasco and several other things.
I did an analysis of my own, and found that BIP110 would have saved the blockchain from 650mb of garbage in January.
Slipstream absolutely was an attack on the network, but it was only possible because the filler was only applied in policy, not in consensus.
Bip110 would reject blocks containing transactions from slipstream.
Core v30 didn't fix anything, it just opened the door for abuse wider.
How else did they get into a block then?
They were relayed through regular nodes running libre relay.
I myself had one running and saw many transactions > 80 bytes in my logs.
Made several posts about it with txids so anyone could verify.
It's quite literally how Core and Bitcoin works. If you weren't aware of this that's on you. Core doesn't work for you.
That‘s my point. The hubris. Core Devs got corrupted. #BIP110.
Wasn’t Core a community project? I must have missed when it became a private endeavour for 5 people. 🤔
