Categories: Bitcoin Latest News

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 Rumble

Listen To This Episode Here:

AppleSpotifyGoogleLibsyn

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.

Read More

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.

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:

AppleSpotifyGoogleLibsyn

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.

Feedzy

Recent Posts

Satsuma Shareholders Approve Bitcoin Liquidation, London Delisting

Bitcoin Magazine Satsuma Shareholders Approve Bitcoin Liquidation, London Delisting Satsuma shareholders have voted to unwind…

37 minutes ago

Here’s why bitcoin bulls should take a closer look at interest rates

Your day-ahead look for July 22, 2026Read MoreCoinDesk: Bitcoin, Ethereum, Crypto News and Price Data[#item_full_content]

2 hours ago

Bitcoin retreats from one-month high as oil tops $85, inflation concerns resurface

BTC retreated from a one-month high as WTI crude topped $85 for the first time…

3 hours ago

Balance stablecoin collapses 99% after $1 million exploit drains its bitcoin vaults

An attacker fed the lending system a fake, abnormally low bitcoin price, liquidated vaults that…

4 hours ago

Live updates: Bitcoin under $66,000 as traders await Alphabet earnings to gauge AI trade

A two-day chip rebound stalled ahead of Alphabet's earnings in a sign of whether the…

5 hours ago

Bitcoin holds near $66,300 as chips extend their rally and the yen hits a 40-year low

Semiconductor stocks led a second day of gains on AI optimism, while the yen slid…

8 hours ago