A lot to unpack here.
> The fact they will remove the option for us node runners to decide what will go trough our nodes is shady. I want option to change OP_RETURN value in settings.
The latest version of the pull request only deprecates, but does not remove the configuration option.
> Increasing the Blockchain size by allowing arbitrary data transactions. It's true they'll pay more but that won't stop them and major miners arent against that.
OP_RETURN data is written to output scripts. Output scripts are not subject to the witness discount. More OP_RETURN data would likely reduce blockchain growth, so as I was asking in the above post, I am not sure where this idea is coming from.
> The cost of running a node will increase because 2TB drive will not be enough if they keep spamming the Bitcoin.
Blocks are limited to 4'000'000 weight units. OP_RETURN data bytes weigh four weight units, so a block filled with OP_RETURN outputs would come in close to 1MB, which is significantly less than the latest 30-day average of 1.64 MB. It’s unlear to me how more OP_RETURN data would increase the blockchain growth.
> Look at the Ethereum for example. Their full archive node requires 12TB of disk space I believe. It might be even more today. And even they have OPTIONS to run 3 kinds of nodes.
No clue, they have made a lot of strange decisions, but I don’t see how it’s relevant as the things that lead to bloat there are completely different.
> I'm not seeing the reason why in the hell #Core devs need to remove this option. Leave it there. I'll decide how much shit I want to broadcast.
I think there have been several books worth of explanations written at this point, so I don’t think it’s useful to elaborate, but if you are earnestly interested, I can provide a few links.
> I hope people won't blindly update to new core 29 release after knowing what that brings.
Bitcoin Core 29.0 came out in April and did not change the OP_RETURN limit. If the currently open pull request should get merged, the change would at the earliest be released with Bitcoin Core 30.0 in October.
Login to reply
Replies (2)
I really appreciate you took the time and wrote the explanations. It's clear to me that I don't have the technical knowledge about this. I'd be happy to read and learn more if you point me in the right direction 🙏🏻
Thank you
Thanks! I answered a lot of the frequent questions on Stacker News a couple weeks ago:
Since it became a pretty big thread, here is a table of contents for the previous thread:
I also thought that Antoine did a great job of addressing most talking points in this debate on delving:

Stacker News
Quick questions about OP_RETURN? Quick answers here. \ stacker news
There has been a lot of debate about a recent discussion on the mailing list and a pull request on the Bitcoin Core repository. The main two points...
Stacker News
A Comprehensive OP_RETURN Limits Q&A Resource to Combat Misinformation \ stacker news
My goal is to share a concise list of questions about OP_RETURN limits that we've answered on Stacker News, as the original thread has become unwie...
Delving Bitcoin
Addressing community concerns and objections regarding my recent proposal to relax Bitcoin Core's standardness limits on OP_RETURN outputs
Hi everyone. I recently proposed that Bitcoin Core lifts its standardness limits on OP_RETURN outputs. The reason is that they are not binding any...