If you’re new to Bitcoin, or if the only SAT you have is ETF or central exchange, you’ll be allowed to be unaware of the whole saga of Core VS Knot and the entire OP_Return. But if you weather some cycles, hold them like a champion and still scratch your head, that’s when you open your eyes.
Like block-sized wars, the war on spam includes fundamental ideological conflicts against Bitcoin’s core principles, particularly scaling vs decentralization, and whether network capacity and ease of use are prioritized over simpler and allowed protocols.
Bitcoin Knot, a long-standing reference implementation of Bitcoin Core, and an increasingly popular alternative maintained by marine mining developers and CTOs, is Luke Dashjr, and Gloves is off.
Core and knot, what’s going on?
At the heart of the controversy is that Bitcoin Core is planning to limit the 80-byte limit for OP_Return data in the upcoming V30 release scheduled for October 2025.
The technological change aimed at increasing flexibility to embed data in the Bitcoin blockchain and unlocking new use cases is vehemently opposed to Knotbackers.
Core developers like Peter Todd and Jameson Ropp argue that the change supports a broader range of innovation, including digital art and document validation. They support the rights of all people to use the Bitcoin blockchain, as they feel, and do not impose governance or morality on them. LOPP post:
“I really hate politics. So there’s little patience to those who try to impose a traditional governance model on Bitcoin. If you hate disorder, you’re free to leave.”
Knot supporters like Samson Mow and Luke Dashjr warn that upgrades risk inflated blockchain, impairing Bitcoin neutrality and weakening its financial purpose. Dashjr warned:
“What do you think will happen because the core opens the locks and opens spam and essentially supports it? (Whatever they say, that’s how spammers take it.) The opportunity for us to make Bitcoin successful will come out of the window unless the community takes a clear stand and refuses to change.”
Network Philosophy and Neutrality
The core-knot conflict highlights a deeper ideological rift around Bitcoin’s function. Does Bitcoin need to remain strictly a financial settlement layer, or can it evolve to meet the needs of more experimental on-chain data, as long as the fees are being paid?
Some people abandon the Core’s apparent policy shifts, making them available if the user pays for it. However, knot supporters emphasize controls with features like spam prevention, claiming that data cap removal can centralize power and threaten scalability.
Minors and relay service operators play a pivotal role, deciding which transaction types reach the block and how the network responds to the preferences of the forked software. Node operators are also increasingly moving to the knots. The network’s share doubled for six weeks from May to June 2025, reaching around 17% of all Bitcoin nodes, with the potential for increased protests and fragmentation ahead of Core’s V30 launch.
Where are you heading?
Although there is no hard fork yet, the possibility of blocks and transactions being rejected by various software clients evokes memories of the 2017 SEGWIT split.
The core and knot scenario also poses another fundamental question surrounding the true decentralization of the Bitcoin network. How many Bitcoin supporters are running their own nodes? Posts:
“The biggest threat to Bitcoin’s survival is that too few people use full nodes. For Bitcoin to work, at least at least 85% of economic activity must do so.”
With technical, political and philosophical interests in action, the October Core V30 release could define the next era of Bitcoin development and decentralized consensus, determining whether software diversity will help Bitcoin resilience or cause an overt chain split.
It is mentioned in this article
(tagstotranslate)Bitcoin
