Crypto Journalist
Amin Ayan
Crypto Journalist
Share
Support is growing for a Bitcoin proposal that would temporarily limit the amount of data embedded in transactions, as a debate over network spam and node decentralization intensifies.
Key Takeaways:
- BIP-110 has gained early traction, with 583 Bitcoin nodes signaling support for a temporary cap on transaction data.
- The proposal seeks to reverse recent Bitcoin Core changes that removed OP_RETURN limits.
- Supporters argue stricter data limits are needed to curb spam and preserve node decentralization.
Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110) is currently signaling support from 583 nodes, or about 2.38% of the network, according to data from The Bitcoin Portal.
Out of roughly 24,481 reachable nodes, those backing the proposal are primarily running Bitcoin Knots, an alternative node implementation often favored by operators critical of recent changes to Bitcoin Core.
BIP-110 Proposes One-Year Cap on Bitcoin Transaction Data
BIP-110 proposes a temporary soft fork that would reintroduce strict limits on transaction data at the consensus level.
Specifically, it caps transaction output sizes at 34 bytes and restricts OP_RETURN data, a script used to embed arbitrary information into transactions, to 83 bytes.
The soft fork is designed to last for one year, after which the limits could be extended, modified or allowed to expire.
The proposal emerged in response to changes introduced in Bitcoin Core version 30, released in October 2025.
That update removed the long-standing 83-byte limit on OP_RETURN data following a pull request first introduced earlier in the year.
The move was controversial and met with widespread criticism from parts of the Bitcoin community, which argued the change was made without sufficient consensus.
OP_RETURN has long been a flashpoint in Bitcoin governance debates. While it enables use cases such as timestamping and metadata anchoring, critics say uncapped data fields encourage blockchain spam and non-financial use of block space.
Larger data payloads increase storage and bandwidth requirements for nodes, raising concerns that running a full node could become cost-prohibitive for everyday users.
Critics of the Core update argue that higher hardware demands risk undermining one of Bitcoin’s defining features, which is the ability for individuals to verify the network using consumer-grade hardware.
As node operation becomes more expensive, they warn, the network could drift toward greater centralization.
Bitcoin educator Matthew Kratter compared unchecked data usage to a parasitic threat. He has argued that excessive spam could overwhelm the network’s underlying structure, weakening Bitcoin’s resilience over time.
BIP-110 Backers Frame Proposal as Temporary Fix
Supporters of BIP-110 see the proposal as a corrective measure rather than a permanent policy shift.
By making the soft fork explicitly temporary, its authors aim to give the network time to assess the impact of restored limits without locking Bitcoin into a long-term rule change.
Others remain unconvinced. Bitcoin Core contributor Jameson Lopp has defended the removal of OP_RETURN limits, arguing that artificial caps do little to deter spam and may instead push unwanted activity into other parts of the protocol.
From this view, market fees should determine how block space is used.
