BIP-110 proposes a temporary cap on Bitcoin transaction data implemented as a one-year soft fork that would reintroduce strict limits on transaction outputs and OP_RETURN usage, specifically capping transaction output sizes at 34 bytes and restricting OP_RETURN data to 83 bytes. The proposal emerged after Bitcoin Core version 30, released in October 2025, removed the 83-byte OP_RETURN limit, and has signaled support from 583 nodes—about 2.38% of the roughly 24,481 reachable nodes—with supporters largely running Bitcoin Knots.
The change has prompted a debate about transaction data limits and network decentralization because OP_RETURN enables timestamping and metadata anchoring yet can be used for non‑financial data, and critics argue that higher data payloads increase storage and bandwidth requirements and therefore the cost of running a full node, a dynamic some warn could centralize the network; Matthew Kratter described unchecked data usage as a parasitic threat.
Supporters characterize BIP-110 as a time‑limited corrective measure, while opponents including Jameson Lopp contend that artificial caps will not deter spam and could simply redirect activity elsewhere.
BIP-110 proposes a temporary soft fork that would reintroduce strict limits on Bitcoin transaction data. It would cap transaction output sizes at 34 bytes and restrict OP_RETURN data to 83 bytes. The soft fork is designed to last one year. The proposal emerged in response to Bitcoin Core version 30, released in October 2025, which removed the 83-byte OP_RETURN limit. OP_RETURN is a point of debate because it enables timestamping and metadata anchoring but can be used for non-financial data.
As reported, 583 nodes are signaling support for BIP-110. That number represents about 2.38% of the network from approximately 24,481 reachable nodes. Supporters backing BIP-110 mostly run Bitcoin Knots. Critics argued that the Bitcoin Core v30 change lacked sufficient consensus. The reporting was published on Cryptonews and the node metrics were drawn from The Bitcoin Portal. The proposal was framed in the context that higher data payloads increase storage and bandwidth, potentially increasing the cost of running a full node.
BIP-110 was proposed as a direct reaction to a change introduced in Bitcoin Core v30, released in October 2025, which removed the 83‑byte OP_RETURN limit. Critics said the removal proceeded without sufficient consensus, and the modification intensified discussion about the permitted uses of OP_RETURN because the field can enable timestamping and metadata anchoring while also being used to embed non‑financial data in transactions. The proposal frames a temporary cap as a corrective measure intended to address the shift in policy brought by the Bitcoin Core update and the emergent dispute over how OP_RETURN should be used on the network.
Concerns driving the proposal center on resource and governance implications. Observers noted that larger data payloads increase storage and bandwidth requirements, which in turn raise the cost of operating a full node and prompted warnings that node operation could centralize as expenses rise. Commentators described unchecked data usage as parasitic on the network, while opponents countered that artificial on‑chain caps would not necessarily stop spam and could move such activity elsewhere, framing the debate in terms of trade‑offs between limiting block‑space usage and broader incentives for network use.
Critics of removing or raising transaction data limits focused on resource and governance implications for node operators and the network. Observers warned that higher data payloads increase storage and bandwidth requirements, which raise the cost of running a full node and create pressure that could reduce the number of independently operated nodes. This dynamic was described by some commentators as parasitic on the network, and critics argued that the change in Bitcoin Core v30 proceeded without sufficient consensus, amplifying concerns about how such decisions are made and by whom. The removal of the 83‑byte OP_RETURN limit was a central element of the dispute, because it altered long‑standing limits on embedded transaction data.
Criticisms also addressed the functional uses of OP_RETURN and broader anti‑spam effectiveness. Opponents highlighted that OP_RETURN enables timestamping and metadata anchoring while it can also be used to embed non‑financial data in transactions, which some see as unsuitable for on‑chain use given limited block space. Some critics warned that rising operational expenses for nodes could lead to centralization as fewer participants can afford to operate full nodes. Other commentators argued that imposing artificial caps would not stop spam and could merely shift activity to other channels or implementations, framing the debate as a trade‑off between preserving node accessibility and controlling block‑space usage.
Supporters of BIP-110 frame the proposal as a corrective, temporary measure intended to reintroduce strict limits on transaction data after the change in Bitcoin Core v30. They describe the change as time‑limited and designed to reinstate bounds on how transaction outputs and OP_RETURN are used on the network. The proposal they back is a temporary soft fork that would restore explicit limits on transaction payloads.
The specific limits supporters endorse under BIP-110 include a 34‑byte cap on transaction output sizes and an 83‑byte restriction on OP_RETURN data, with the soft fork set to last one year. The signal of backing reported comes from 583 nodes, representing about 2.38% of the approximately 24,481 reachable nodes, and supporters are reported to mostly run the Bitcoin Knots client. Supporters present the measures as corrective and time‑bounded rather than permanent protocol changes.
CONCLUSION
BIP-110 is a proposal for a one‑year temporary soft fork that would reintroduce strict limits on Bitcoin transaction data by capping transaction output sizes at 34 bytes and restricting OP_RETURN payloads to 83 bytes. The proposal emerged after Bitcoin Core v30, released in October 2025, removed the 83‑byte OP_RETURN limit, and reporting noted 583 nodes signaling support, representing about 2.38% of roughly 24,481 reachable nodes, with supporters largely running the Bitcoin Knots client. Supporters present the measure as a time‑limited corrective aimed at limiting block‑space usage and reducing on‑chain metadata that they view as harmful to node accessibility and decentralization.
Critics countered that the change in Bitcoin Core v30 lacked sufficient consensus and raised concerns that higher data payloads increase storage and bandwidth requirements, which can raise the cost of running a full node and risk centralizing node operation. Commentators described unchecked data usage as parasitic on the network, while other opponents argued that artificial caps would not deter spam and could shift activity elsewhere. The reporting was published on Cryptonews and drew node metrics from The Bitcoin Portal.
