On June 6, the Bitcoin Core development team issued a statement detailing a new, more lenient transaction relay policy for Bitcoin’s network. This policy aims to permit the relaying of larger, non-financial transactions, which could expand Bitcoin’s utility beyond merely functioning as a digital currency. However, it has sparked considerable debate within the Bitcoin community.
Currently, Bitcoin’s transaction relay policy restricts certain types of non-financial transactions from being relayed, even though these transactions are being mined. This inconsistency has led to issues such as unreliable memory pools, lagging block propagation, and inaccurate fee estimations. The core developers argue that this policy amendment aligns the Bitcoin node software with the practical usage of the network, enabling it to better reflect what will likely be included in the next block.
The statement, endorsed by 31 members of the development team, conveys a philosophy shift that acknowledges the reality of non-financial uses of Bitcoin. They reiterated that the change does not equate to endorsing these uses; rather, it accommodates a diverse spectrum of applications in a censorship-resistant system. In doing so, it follows a previous decision to eliminate the 80-byte limit on OP_RETURN transactions, which had restricted non-financial data use.
Core developer Greg Sanders highlighted the outdated nature of the OP_RETURN cap, stating that it had become more of a hindrance than a help. He described it as a once-useful signal that has outlived its purpose.
The response from the community has been mixed. Critics argue that this policy shift could lead to increased spam and network congestion, diverting from Bitcoin’s foundational intentions. Luke Dashjr, another core developer, expressed strong opposition, stating that expecting spam to proliferate is a defeatist perspective and that aiding its spread could harm the network.
Dennis Porter, CEO of the Satoshi Action Fund, decried the update as a “forced change” that endorses network bloat, attributing its emergence to interests that prioritise profit over the network’s integrity. He voiced concerns that venture capitalist influences may have exacerbated this issue.
Conversely, some industry figures, like Jameson Lopp of Casa, offered a tempered support, acknowledging the development team’s right to dictate how the network should operate. Lopp reminded critics that dissenters have the option to create alternative versions of Bitcoin software or to employ developers to do so.
This ongoing debate highlights a significant moment for Bitcoin, where differing visions for its future are being put to the test. The broader implications for scalability, transaction efficiency, and community consensus will continue to evolve as these discussions unfold.
