{"id":90303,"date":"2025-10-27T11:00:47","date_gmt":"2025-10-27T09:00:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/forklog.com\/en\/?p=90303"},"modified":"2025-10-27T10:05:43","modified_gmt":"2025-10-27T08:05:43","slug":"new-proposal-to-limit-blockchain-data-divides-bitcoin-community","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/forklog.com\/en\/new-proposal-to-limit-blockchain-data-divides-bitcoin-community\/","title":{"rendered":"New Proposal to Limit Blockchain Data Divides Bitcoin Community"},"content":{"rendered":"

A Bitcoin developer known as dathonohm has introduced<\/a> BIP<\/span>-444, which suggests temporarily restricting the addition of arbitrary data to the blockchain to mitigate the risk of illegal content placement.<\/p>\n

The initiative is a response to the controversial upgrade of Bitcoin Core v30<\/a>, which increased the data transmission limit in OP_RETURN outputs from 80 to 100,000 bytes. This update sparked a strong reaction from the community, with critics pointing to potential risks of spreading illegal content.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cIf the blockchain contains data prohibited from storage or distribution, node operators are forced to choose between breaking the law (or their moral principles) and disconnecting from the network. This unacceptable dilemma directly undermines the incentives for validation, leads to inevitable centralization, and creates an existential threat to Bitcoin’s security model,\u201d states BIP-444.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

dathonohm proposed limiting OP_RETURN outputs to 83 bytes and most other scriptPubKeys to 34. This would block the addition of large scripts and data, including “inscriptions” on the Ordinals<\/a> protocol.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The initiative would also limit the size of embedded Merkle trees<\/a> in Taproot<\/a> outputs and prohibit OP_IF within Tapscripts.<\/p>\n

Community Divided Again\u00a0<\/h2>\n

Implementing BIP-444 would lead to a soft fork<\/span>, rendering previously valid transactions invalid, but only for one year.\u00a0<\/p>\n

It is expected that during this time, Bitcoin developers will be able to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the situation and implement alternative methods for storing arbitrary data on the blockchain.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThe explicitly temporary nature of the soft fork further emphasizes that this is a targeted intervention to mitigate a specific crisis, not a proposal for a new direction of development,\u201d the proposal clarifies.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Lead Bitcoin Core developer Luke Dashjr supported<\/a> the initiative, stating that it \u201caligns with the strategic course and has no technical obstacles.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThis is not a perfect proposal, but it is good enough and simple enough to buy time for developing a long-term solution,\u201d <\/em>he added<\/em><\/a>.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Critics of BIP-444 argue that restricting data sizes contradicts Bitcoin’s fundamental principle and is tantamount to censorship.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Many also noted the strange wording of the proposal \u2014 the refusal to conduct a soft fork could allegedly lead to \u201clegal or moral consequences.\u201d The founder of a Bitcoin educational resource and engineer known as Bam drew<\/a> a parallel with George Orwell’s “1984.”\u00a0<\/p>\n

Programmer Ben Kaufman called the initiative an attempt to attack the first cryptocurrency network.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n

A fork under the threat of \u201clegal consequences\u201d is the most clear case of an attack on Bitcoin<\/p>\n

\u2014 Ben Kaufman (@_benkaufman) October 26, 2025<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n