🧨 Bitcoin Core 30 Back to the future: From Money Network to Darknet Trap ? Bitcoin has always been marketed as sound money: scarce, censorship-resistant, and simple in design. But the new Core 30 update pushes Bitcoin in a very different direction. With it, the limit for OP_RETURN is raised from a mere 80 bytes to a staggering 100,000 bytes. This seemingly small technical change transforms Bitcoin from a monetary network into something much riskier: a decentralized data dump. What does that mean in practice? Instead of embedding tiny markers or hashes, anyone will now be able to inscribe entire data blocks directly into the blockchain. What used to require shady miner workarounds is now officially sanctioned at the protocol level. Bitcoin is no longer just money, it risks becoming an uncensorable hosting service for whatever content the world throws at it. --- The real dangers History already gave us a preview. When BSV and Namecoin removed similar barriers, their chains were quickly flooded with child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and malware. The same could now happen to Bitcoin. If Core 30 ships as planned, attackers can deliberately inject illegal data into the blockchain, and every node operator will unknowingly end up storing it. The reputational fallout could be devastating. It is one thing to be accused of wasting electricity or being used by criminals. It is another thing entirely if Bitcoin is branded worldwide as a “child pornography blockchain.” That is not a debate Bitcoiners can win in the court of public opinion. There are also technical consequences. Cloud-based nodes running on AWS, Azure, or DigitalOcean often have automatic virus and malware scanners. If a single chunk of malicious code makes its way into the chain, entire clusters of nodes could be shut down overnight by their hosting providers. Even private operators may suddenly find themselves hosting illegal files without consent, creating legal liabilities they never signed up for. Regulators could even exploit this deliberately, seeding the blockchain with prohibited material in order to make node operators legally vulnerable. --- What this means for everyday node operators The average user who updates to Core 30 without paying attention risks becoming collateral damage. By default, Core will store and relay everything, no questions asked. Unless you use alternative implementations like Bitcoin Knots with filtering, you may be at risk. Even then, because the change occurs at the consensus level, filtering is not a perfect shield. Hosting your node in the cloud will be even riskier. A careless update could mean your VPS provider shuts you down or worse, that you are implicated in storing illegal material. --- Who decides these changes? Bitcoin is supposed to be decentralized, but in reality only five people have merge rights on the Bitcoin Core repository. These maintainers are: Ava Chow (Blockstream) – Wallet specialist, known for shutting down Luke Dashjr’s attempt to block Ordinals. Michael Ford (Australia, financed by Brink and Gemini) – Maintainer since 2019, focused on build systems and security. Gloria Zhao (USA, sponsored by Brink, HRF, Spiral) – MemPool expert and one of the loudest voices in favor of raising the OP_RETURN limit. Hennadii Stepanov (Ukraine, Brink-funded) – Focused on the GUI, has stayed quiet on the issue. Russell Yanofsky (Chaincode Labs) – Works on modularization, no clear position publicly stated. Almost all of them are funded by a handful of organizations: Chaincode Labs, Blockstream, Brink, Square/Spiral, and Gemini. In effect, a small, tightly connected group holds the keys to Bitcoin’s future. Decisions are often made behind the scenes, without formal governance structures or transparent processes. The community has little say, even though the consequences are enormous. --- The Core 30 controversy The push to increase OP_RETURN did not emerge from the grassroots Bitcoin community. It was driven by developers like Gloria Zhao and Greg Sanders of Chaincode, who argued for “harmonization” and “flexibility.” Critics like Luke Dashjr of Bitcoin Knots, however, have called it “insanity” and warned it will open Bitcoin to legal and reputational attacks. Independent voices such as Bitcoin Mechanic have also blasted the change as reckless. This division exposes a deeper problem: the governance of Bitcoin development is far more centralized than most Bitcoiners are willing to admit. With only five maintainers, funded by a narrow set of sponsors, the network is vulnerable to decisions that reflect the priorities of its funders rather than the broader community. --- What is at stake? If Core 30 is adopted, Bitcoin faces three simultaneous risks. First, technical instability, as nodes could be taken offline en masse by hosting providers. Second, legal vulnerability, as node operators may unwillingly become hosts of illicit data. And third, reputational collapse, as the narrative of Bitcoin as “digital gold” could be overshadowed by the accusation that it is “a child pornography blockchain.” This is not a theoretical debate. The precedent is there. The attack surface is clear. And the reputational consequences would be brutal. --- A call for caution Bitcoiners need to recognize that Core 30 is not just a routine upgrade. It is a paradigm shift. It changes Bitcoin from a narrowly focused monetary protocol into a general-purpose data warehouse and one with catastrophic downsides. Node operators should think twice before upgrading blindly. They should consider running alternative clients, avoiding cloud hosting, and filtering aggressively. More importantly, the community must challenge the concentration of power among a handful of maintainers and demand transparency in how such far-reaching decisions are made. --- Conclusion Bitcoin is at a crossroads. Core 30 may go down as the single most reckless decision in the project’s history, one that undermines its technical stability, exposes its users to legal peril, and destroys its reputation in the eyes of the public. The question is simple: will we allow a handful of developers and their sponsors to redefine Bitcoin without consent, or will the community step in before Bitcoin is turned into a trap of its own making? We have about a month to come to terms with this.