Is Adding Functionality To Bitcoin A Problem?
Adding operation codes to Bitcoin can increase the types of functions users are able to perform, but choosing their size limits has been a topic of debate.Watch The Episode On YouTube or RumbleListen To This Episode Here...
Archive context
Older archive item. Useful for background and entity history, but not a fresh market-moving signal.
Adding operation codes to Bitcoin can increase the types of functions users are able to perform, but choosing their size limits has been a topic of debate.
Watch The Episode On YouTube or Rumble
Listen To This Episode Here:
In this episode of “Bitcoin, Explained,” hosts Aaron van Wirdum and Sjors Provoost discuss OP_RETURN and what some have called the “OP_RETURN Wars.” More specifically, they discuss a blog post by BitMEX Research titled “The OP_Return Wars of 2014 – Dapps Vs Bitcoin Transactions.”
Van Wirdum and Provoost start off by explaining that OP_RETURN is an operation code (a piece of code for Bitcoin transactions) that will render invalid any transaction that includes it in an input. This means that outputs that include OP_RETURN are unspendable, which in turn means that Bitcoin nodes can safely remove such UTXOs from their UTXO set, which saves on storage.
Early in Bitcoin’s years, people started using bitcoin for more than just transactions. As one example given by Provoost demonstrates, someone uploaded the entire Bitcoin white paper onto the blockchain. The BitMEX post explains that Layer 2 protocols, like Counterparty, were rolling out decentralized applications on the blockchain. This type of non-transaction data was initially embedded in multisig transactions, but this meant that all Bitcoin nodes had to download, process and store this data forever, which comes at a cost.
Van Wirdum and Provoost explain that in 2014, Bitcoin developers agreed to let nodes process and forward transactions with OP_RETURN outputs to mitigate this problem. These transactions would be better for uploading data, since their outputs can be removed from the UTXO set.
The “OP_RETURN Wars” refer to a debate between Bitcoin developers and (most notably) Counterparty developers over the maximum size of such transactions. Provoost explains why the maximum of 40 bytes was initially chosen, why this was later increased to 80 bytes and how these considerations have changed over time.
Why this matters
This bitcoin story adds another data point to the current market tape and is useful when read alongside nearby source coverage.
Original source
Read on Bitcoin MagazineRelated market context
Injective (INJ), PEARL and Zcash (ZEC) Surge as Crypto Traders Return to Altcoins
Injective (INJ), PEARL, and Zcash (ZEC) are gaining attention as crypto traders return to altcoins, with renewed momentum across d...
Best Crypto To Buy Now with $100: PEPS, Morpho, Near, BTC, Monero
Price check: 6 November 2026. All amounts are in US dollars. Traded-coin prices are market data snapshots and fluctuate. Presale p...
CFTC data shows speculators pile into 5-year Treasury shorts for week of November 3, 2026
Speculators' increased 5-year Treasury shorts may signal expectations of rising interest rates, impacting borrowing costs and econ...
Speculators increase short positions on five-year Treasury futures: CFTC data
Rising short positions on Treasury futures suggest market anticipation of higher yields, impacting interest rate expectations and...
CoinGecko cuts x402 crypto data costs by 50% to $0.005 per call
CoinGecko cuts x402 API costs 50% to $0.005 per call, adds Polygon USDC payments, and lets devs access crypto data with no API key...
BIS data shows fiat currencies last a median 33 years, and Bitcoin fans noticed
The BIS data highlights fiat currency fragility, fueling crypto debates, but the institution's stance underscores Bitcoin's limita...