tl;dr
A controversy has arisen in the Bitcoin community following a joint statement by 31 Bitcoin Core developers defending the removal of the 80-byte data cap on transaction relays. The developers argue that this change allows for more efficient embedding of larger data segments and supports censorship r...
A heated debate has erupted in the Bitcoin community following the removal of the 80-byte data cap on transaction relays by Bitcoin Core developers. Thirty-one developers jointly defended this move, arguing it enhances network efficiency by allowing larger data segments and bolsters censorship resistance. They emphasized that Bitcoin users should have the freedom to choose between financial and non-financial blockchain uses, asserting that transaction relay policies must not block transactions that carry economic demand and are technically harmless.
Transaction relay, a fundamental function of Bitcoin nodes, ensures that transactions and validations propagate across the network to keep the blockchain consistent. The long-standing 80-byte limit was initially a gentle nudge to preserve block space but has become less effective as users found ways to circumvent it. The developers believe that removing this cap will allow the fee market to manage competing demands on the network more efficiently and prevent hidden risks from circumvented limits.
Core developers underscored three primary goals of transaction relay: predicting which transactions miners will include in blocks (thereby preventing denial-of-service attacks), speeding transaction propagation to thwart unfair mining advantages, and informing miners about fee-paying transactions. They stressed that refusing to relay economically viable transactions would push users to alternative, less secure communication channels, undermining the network’s health. Although large data transactions do not align with all users’ preferences, the developers highlighted Bitcoin’s underlying ethos of censorship resistance, accepting diverse use cases even if controversial.
Opponents of the policy change, including prominent voices like developer Luke Dashjr and Bitcoin Knots maintainer SatsScholar, criticize the move as an ideological drift away from Bitcoin’s original monetary focus. They argue that sanctioning large-volume non-financial data use legitimizes what they see as spam or denial-of-service attacks, risks network bloat, threatens scalability, and could centralize power further. Detractors caution that this shift dilutes Bitcoin’s role as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system and undermines network efficiency.
The split within the community reflects broader tensions between preserving Bitcoin’s foundational purpose as a digital currency and adapting to evolving use cases and user demands. While some see the removal of the data cap as a necessary step for network resilience and user freedom, others worry it opens the door to abuse and threatens the integrity and future scalability of the entire ecosystem. This ongoing debate highlights the challenges of balancing innovation with Bitcoin’s original vision.