Bitcoin's OP_RETURN Debate: TL;DR What’s OP_RETURN? A Bitcoin opcode letting users embed small bits of data (~80 bytes) in transactions. These outputs become permanently unspendable—turning Bitcoin into a decentralized digital storage and/or notary. Why it matters? It’s an ideological crossroads: - Pure money vs. General-purpose storage - Minimalism (clean ledger, decentralization) vs. Expanded utility (mission creep risk) Originally, Bitcoin was strictly financial. Around 2013, devs started embedding timestamps, tokens (NFTs), identities, etc., using OP_RETURN. What changed? Bitcoin Core v0.9.0 (2014) standardized OP_RETURN—initially capped at 40 bytes, now 80 bytes. Before OP_RETURN, users resorted to ugly hacks (fake addresses, multisig spam), cluttering the blockchain and polluting the UTXO set. OP_RETURN cleaned up that mess. The Core Debate (simplified): Critics: -Blockchain Bloat: Extra data permanently enlarges blockchain size, threatening decentralization. - Mission Creep: Dilutes Bitcoin’s original vision (digital peer-to-peer money). - Economic Externalities: Embedder pays once; nodes store data forever. Supporters: - Innovation: Enables real, valuable use-cases (NFTs, stablecoins like Tether, notarization, data storage etc.). - Cleaner Approach: Avoids worse solutions that would pollute the UTXO set. - Limited Impact: The 80-byte cap limits damage and ensures predictability. Bitcoin’s core job is decentralized money—not arbitrary data storage. OP_RETURN is a practical compromise—but keep it tightly capped, impose higher fees to internalize node costs, and move larger data off-chain. Bitcoin’s killer feature is scarcity and security. It’s the ultimate hard financial asset and global collateral. My opinion - leave OP_Return as is or increase slightly. Otherwise, send large-scale data storage somewhere else—like Arweave or Walrus. Opinion purely positioning not technical in nature.