The cypherpunk joins the debate on the Bitcoin Core v30 upgrade that is dividing the community.
Bitcoin Core developers have released the second test version of the Bitcoin Core v30 upgrade. On September 28, the Bitcoin Core Project X account announced the availability of a new release candidate (v30.0rc2) for testing, calling it a “new major release.” The upgrade gradually removes the old legacy wallet infrastructure and introduces a simplified command system, but the main controversies concern changes to the policies related to the OP_RETURN opcode, which allows arbitrary data to be embedded in transactions.
The expansion of data limits removes the default cap of 80 bytes, raising it to a virtually unlimited level, up to nearly 4 megabytes per transaction output.
Some users argue that the network should be used exclusively for financial transactions, not for data storage. According to them, extensive use of OP_RETURN would permanently bloat the blockchain, since every full node must retain this data, increasing operational costs. Furthermore, the network could be flooded with spam and malware.
Another part of the community argues that if users pay the fees, they should be able to use block space as they wish, while market forces will naturally limit malicious uses through transaction fees.
The upgrade to version 30 is expected by the end of October, although the precise date remains flexible due to ongoing testing and developer debates.
Nick Szabo enters the debate
On September 28, cypherpunk pioneer Nick Szabo returned to X after nearly five years of absence, joining the debate. He stated that network fees, described by developer Calle as the “spam filter,” protect miners but do not provide sufficient disincentive to protect full nodes.
Szabo said:
He further added: “It’s an open legal issue almost everywhere,” suggesting that nodes could be held legally liable for harmful data stored on the blockchain.
A court case highlighted by attorney Joe Carlasare ruled that node operators are not liable if they don’t have knowledge or control of the data. Szabo noted that one argument in favor of Core is that data can be hidden in other ways, but OP_RETURN data is prunable. “This suggests that allowing more data on OP_RETURN conceivably may reduce legal risks,” Szabo said.
However, a counterargument holds that illegal content in standard format, thus readily viewable by common software, “is more likely to impress lawyers, judges, and jurors, and thus is legally more risky, than data that has been broken up or hidden and thus requires specialized software to reconstruct,” the cypherpunk noted.
