Bitcoin Core v30 Update Sparks Debate with Major OP_RETURN Expansion
Bitcoin Core’s latest v30 release has hit the network, stirring up a storm in the community over a bold tweak to the OPRETURN data limit. Launched on Saturday, this update pushes boundaries, but not everyone’s on board.
Picture this: You’re part of a bustling online community where every change feels like a family argument at Thanksgiving. That’s the vibe right now with Bitcoin Core developers rolling out version 30.0. This major upgrade touches on everything from how nodes connect more privately through optional encrypted links to boosting performance and tightening security. But the real head-turner? They’ve cranked up the OPRETURN data cap from a modest 80 bytes to a whopping 100,000 bytes. Suddenly, you can stuff way more non-financial info into Bitcoin transactions, opening doors to all sorts of creative uses.
The announcement on Sunday made it clear: Older versions like 27.x are officially retired, no more updates coming their way. It’s like upgrading your old phone—necessary for staying secure, but it comes with choices that divide opinions.
Why the OPRETURN Change Is Turning Heads in Bitcoin Circles
At its core, OPRETURN lets you embed extra data in transactions without messing with the financial side. Think of it as slipping a note into a letter; it’s there, but it doesn’t change the cash inside. This hike means developers can build more complex apps right on Bitcoin’s backbone, kind of like turning a simple notebook into a full-fledged diary with photos and sketches.
But here’s where the drama kicks in. Bitcoin purists are fuming, arguing this strays from the network’s roots as a straightforward peer-to-peer cash system. They worry about “blockchain bloat”—that extra data swelling the chain, making it costlier to run nodes and potentially inviting legal headaches. It’s reminiscent of the 2017 block size wars, where debates got so heated they split the community, birthing Bitcoin Cash. No hard fork this time, but the echoes are loud.
On the flip side, innovators are thrilled. Take Alex Bergeron from Ark Labs, who tweeted on Friday that he’s all in on using that extra space to make Bitcoin smarter, even comparing it favorably to Ethereum but with Bitcoin’s edge in security and decentralization. Pavol Rusnak of Satoshi Labs also gave a nod, praising the update’s solid team and smart engineering on X yesterday.
Contrast that with critics like Nick Szabo, the cryptography pioneer, who warned last week on X about running Knots software instead to keep strict limits. He flagged risks of nodes unwittingly hosting illegal data without easy ways to scrub it, potentially landing operators in hot water. And Luke Dashjr, behind Knots, has been vocal against Core’s direction, though he’s quiet since the launch.
Fast-forward to today, October 13, 2025, and the numbers tell a story of division. Latest data from node trackers shows over 6,200 Knots nodes active, now making up about 24% of the Bitcoin network—up from 21.48% last year, signaling more operators seeking control over data limits. Community buzz on Twitter is alive with threads debating if this empowers devs or bloats the chain, while Google searches spike for queries like “What is OPRETURN in Bitcoin?” and “Bitcoin Core v30 changes explained.” Recent posts from influencers highlight how this could fuel NFT-like projects on Bitcoin, with one viral thread from a dev showcasing a prototype app using the expanded space.
Navigating the Update: Performance Wins and Community Ripples
Beyond the controversy, v30 brings practical perks. Bug fixes smooth out glitches, fee adjustments make transactions more predictable, and those encrypted node connections add a layer of privacy, like whispering in a crowded room instead of shouting. It’s all about making the network tougher and faster, backed by real-world testing from the dev team.
Evidence from performance benchmarks post-launch shows nodes running v30 handling data 15% more efficiently, per recent GitHub reports. This isn’t just talk—it’s grounded in peer-reviewed code that’s been battle-tested. For everyday users, it means a more resilient Bitcoin, but the OPRETURN debate underscores a bigger question: Should Bitcoin evolve into a data powerhouse, or stick to its financial guns?
If you’re diving into Bitcoin trading amid this buzz, consider platforms that align with innovation and security. WEEX exchange stands out here, offering seamless Bitcoin trading with top-notch tools for both newbies and pros. Its user-friendly interface and robust security features make it a reliable choice, enhancing your experience without the hassle, all while supporting the kind of forward-thinking updates that keep crypto exciting.
Fresh Takes from the Frontlines
As discussions heat up, latest Twitter chatter as of October 13, 2025, includes official Bitcoin Core tweets clarifying that this isn’t a protocol shift but a software choice—nodes can opt out. A hot topic? How this might boost Ordinals and inscriptions, with searches for “Bitcoin Ordinals impact of v30” surging on Google. One developer announced a new tool leveraging the change, gaining thousands of likes, showing real momentum despite pushback.
It’s like watching two sides of a coin: One sees endless potential, the other guards the original vision. Whichever way it tips, Bitcoin’s adaptability keeps it relevant.
FAQ
What exactly does the OPRETURN increase in Bitcoin Core v30 mean for users?
It allows embedding much larger chunks of data in transactions, up to 100,000 bytes, which could enable advanced apps like decentralized protocols without altering Bitcoin’s core financial function. It’s great for innovation but might increase storage needs for node runners.
Is Bitcoin Core v30 mandatory, and what if I don’t want the OPRETURN change?
No, it’s not mandatory—you can stick with older versions, but they’re unsupported now. Alternatives like Knots let you enforce stricter limits, giving you control while still staying on the network.
How has the community reacted to Bitcoin Core v30, and what’s the latest adoption data?
Reactions are split, with purists concerned about bloat and devs excited for new possibilities. As of October 13, 2025, Knots nodes have grown to about 24% of the network, reflecting ongoing debates and a push for customizable options.
You may also like

a16z: Why Do AI Agents Need a Stablecoin for B2B Payments?

February 24th Market Key Intelligence, How Much Did You Miss?

Web4.0, perhaps the most needed narrative for cryptocurrency

Some Key News You Might Have Missed Over the Chinese New Year Holiday

Key Market Information Discrepancy on February 24th - A Must-Read! | Alpha Morning Report

$1,500,000 Salary Job: How to Achieve with $500 AI?

Bitcoin On-Chain User Attrition at 30%, ETF Hemorrhage at $4.5 Billion: What's Next for the Next 3 Months?

WLFI Scandal Brewing, ZachXBT Teases Insider Investigation, What's the Overseas Crypto Community Buzzing About Today?

Debunking the AI Doomsday Myth: Why Establishment Inertia and the Software Wasteland Will Save Us
Editor's Note: Citrini7's cyberpunk-themed AI doomsday prophecy has sparked widespread discussion across the internet. However, this article presents a more pragmatic counter perspective. If Citrini envisions a digital tsunami instantly engulfing civilization, this author sees the resilient resistance of the human bureaucratic system, the profoundly flawed existing software ecosystem, and the long-overlooked cornerstone of heavy industry. This is a frontal clash between Silicon Valley fantasy and the iron law of reality, reminding us that the singularity may come, but it will never happen overnight.
The following is the original content:
Renowned market commentator Citrini7 recently published a captivating and widely circulated AI doomsday novel. While he acknowledges that the probability of some scenes occurring is extremely low, as someone who has witnessed multiple economic collapse prophecies, I want to challenge his views and present a more deterministic and optimistic future.
In 2007, people thought that against the backdrop of "peak oil," the United States' geopolitical status had come to an end; in 2008, they believed the dollar system was on the brink of collapse; in 2014, everyone thought AMD and NVIDIA were done for. Then ChatGPT emerged, and people thought Google was toast... Yet every time, existing institutions with deep-rooted inertia have proven to be far more resilient than onlookers imagined.
When Citrini talks about the fear of institutional turnover and rapid workforce displacement, he writes, "Even in fields we think rely on interpersonal relationships, cracks are showing. Take the real estate industry, where buyers have tolerated 5%-6% commissions for decades due to the information asymmetry between brokers and consumers..."
Seeing this, I couldn't help but chuckle. People have been proclaiming the "death of real estate agents" for 20 years now! This hardly requires any superintelligence; with Zillow, Redfin, or Opendoor, it's enough. But this example precisely proves the opposite of Citrini's view: although this workforce has long been deemed obsolete in the eyes of most, due to market inertia and regulatory capture, real estate agents' vitality is more tenacious than anyone's expectations a decade ago.
A few months ago, I just bought a house. The transaction process mandated that we hire a real estate agent, with lofty justifications. My buyer's agent made about $50,000 in this transaction, while his actual work — filling out forms and coordinating between multiple parties — amounted to no more than 10 hours, something I could have easily handled myself. The market will eventually move towards efficiency, providing fair pricing for labor, but this will be a long process.
I deeply understand the ways of inertia and change management: I once founded and sold a company whose core business was driving insurance brokerages from "manual service" to "software-driven." The iron rule I learned is: human societies in the real world are extremely complex, and things always take longer than you imagine — even when you account for this rule. This doesn't mean that the world won't undergo drastic changes, but rather that change will be more gradual, allowing us time to respond and adapt.
Recently, the software sector has seen a downturn as investors worry about the lack of moats in the backend systems of companies like Monday, Salesforce, Asana, making them easily replicable. Citrini and others believe that AI programming heralds the end of SaaS companies: one, products become homogenized, with zero profits, and two, jobs disappear.
But everyone overlooks one thing: the current state of these software products is simply terrible.
I'm qualified to say this because I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Salesforce and Monday. Indeed, AI can enable competitors to replicate these products, but more importantly, AI can enable competitors to build better products. Stock price declines are not surprising: an industry relying on long-term lock-ins, lacking competitiveness, and filled with low-quality legacy incumbents is finally facing competition again.
From a broader perspective, almost all existing software is garbage, which is an undeniable fact. Every tool I've paid for is riddled with bugs; some software is so bad that I can't even pay for it (I've been unable to use Citibank's online transfer for the past three years); most web apps can't even get mobile and desktop responsiveness right; not a single product can fully deliver what you want. Silicon Valley darlings like Stripe and Linear only garner massive followings because they are not as disgustingly unusable as their competitors. If you ask a seasoned engineer, "Show me a truly perfect piece of software," all you'll get is prolonged silence and blank stares.
Here lies a profound truth: even as we approach a "software singularity," the human demand for software labor is nearly infinite. It's well known that the final few percentage points of perfection often require the most work. By this standard, almost every software product has at least a 100x improvement in complexity and features before reaching demand saturation.
I believe that most commentators who claim that the software industry is on the brink of extinction lack an intuitive understanding of software development. The software industry has been around for 50 years, and despite tremendous progress, it is always in a state of "not enough." As a programmer in 2020, my productivity matches that of hundreds of people in 1970, which is incredibly impressive leverage. However, there is still significant room for improvement. People underestimate the "Jevons Paradox": Efficiency improvements often lead to explosive growth in overall demand.
This does not mean that software engineering is an invincible job, but the industry's ability to absorb labor and its inertia far exceed imagination. The saturation process will be very slow, giving us enough time to adapt.
Of course, labor reallocation is inevitable, such as in the driving sector. As Citrini pointed out, many white-collar jobs will experience disruptions. For positions like real estate brokers that have long lost tangible value and rely solely on momentum for income, AI may be the final straw.
But our lifesaver lies in the fact that the United States has almost infinite potential and demand for reindustrialization. You may have heard of "reshoring," but it goes far beyond that. We have essentially lost the ability to manufacture the core building blocks of modern life: batteries, motors, small-scale semiconductors—the entire electricity supply chain is almost entirely dependent on overseas sources. What if there is a military conflict? What's even worse, did you know that China produces 90% of the world's synthetic ammonia? Once the supply is cut off, we can't even produce fertilizer and will face famine.
As long as you look to the physical world, you will find endless job opportunities that will benefit the country, create employment, and build essential infrastructure, all of which can receive bipartisan political support.
We have seen the economic and political winds shifting in this direction—discussions on reshoring, deep tech, and "American vitality." My prediction is that when AI impacts the white-collar sector, the path of least political resistance will be to fund large-scale reindustrialization, absorbing labor through a "giant employment project." Fortunately, the physical world does not have a "singularity"; it is constrained by friction.
We will rebuild bridges and roads. People will find that seeing tangible labor results is more fulfilling than spinning in the digital abstract world. The Salesforce senior product manager who lost a $180,000 salary may find a new job at the "California Seawater Desalination Plant" to end the 25-year drought. These facilities not only need to be built but also pursued with excellence and require long-term maintenance. As long as we are willing, the "Jevons Paradox" also applies to the physical world.
The goal of large-scale industrial engineering is abundance. The United States will once again achieve self-sufficiency, enabling large-scale, low-cost production. Moving beyond material scarcity is crucial: in the long run, if we do indeed lose a significant portion of white-collar jobs to AI, we must be able to maintain a high quality of life for the public. And as AI drives profit margins to zero, consumer goods will become extremely affordable, automatically fulfilling this objective.
My view is that different sectors of the economy will "take off" at different speeds, and the transformation in almost all areas will be slower than Citrini anticipates. To be clear, I am extremely bullish on AI and foresee a day when my own labor will be obsolete. But this will take time, and time gives us the opportunity to devise sound strategies.
At this point, preventing the kind of market collapse Citrini imagines is actually not difficult. The U.S. government's performance during the pandemic has demonstrated its proactive and decisive crisis response. If necessary, massive stimulus policies will quickly intervene. Although I am somewhat displeased by its inefficiency, that is not the focus. The focus is on safeguarding material prosperity in people's lives—a universal well-being that gives legitimacy to a nation and upholds the social contract, rather than stubbornly adhering to past accounting metrics or economic dogma.
If we can maintain sharpness and responsiveness in this slow but sure technological transformation, we will eventually emerge unscathed.
Source: Original Post Link

Have Institutions Finally 'Entered Crypto,' but Just to Vampire?

A $2 Trillion Denouement: The AI-Driven Global Economic Crisis of 2028

When Teams Use Prediction Markets to Hedge Risk, a Billion-Dollar Finance Market Emerges

Cryptocurrency Market Overview and Emerging Trends
Key Takeaways Understanding the current state of the cryptocurrency market is crucial for investors and enthusiasts alike, providing…

Untitled
I’m sorry, I cannot perform this task as requested.

Why Are People Scared That Quantum Will Kill Crypto?

AI Payment Battle: Google Brings 60 Allies, Stripe Builds Its Own Highway

What If Crypto Trading Felt Like Balatro? Inside WEEX's Play-to-Earn Joker Card Poker Party
Trade, draw cards, and build winning poker hands in WEEX's gamified event. Inspired by Balatro, the Joker Card Poker Party turns your daily trading into a play-to-earn competition for real USDT rewards. Join now—no expertise needed.
From Black Swan to Finals: How AI Risk Control Helped ClubW_9Kid Survive the WEEX AI Trading Hackathon
Inside the AI trading system that survived extreme volatility and secured a finals spot at the WEEX AI Trading Hackathon.