In the ever-evolving world of Bitcoin, a heated debate has erupted in 2025, pitting the dominant Bitcoin Core implementation against its alternative, Bitcoin Knots. Often referred to as the "OP_RETURN War" or "Bitcoin Civil War 2.0," this conflict centers on philosophical differences about Bitcoin's purpose, technical policies, and governance. As Bitcoin Core prepares for its version 30 (v30) release in October 2025, tensions have escalated, with node operators, developers, and influencers choosing sides. This article outlines the key facts, timelines, arguments, and underlying reasons for the divide, drawing on recent developments as of September 19, 2025.

BACKGROUND ON BITCOIN IMPLEMENTATIONS

Bitcoin operates through software implementations that enforce its rules and relay transactions across the network. Bitcoin Core, the reference implementation, powers the majority of nodes—around 82% as of mid-September 2025—and is maintained by a group of developers focused on stability, security, and incremental improvements. It evolved from Satoshi Nakamoto's original code and has been the de facto standard for years.

Bitcoin Knots, maintained by long-time contributor Luke Dashjr, is a fork of Core that includes additional features and policy tweaks aimed at enhancing privacy, reducing spam, and prioritizing decentralization. Knots has seen explosive growth in adoption, jumping from negligible usage to about 18% of reachable nodes by September 2025, largely as a protest against Core's direction. This surge reflects a broader backlash from "Bitcoin purists" who view Core as increasingly centralized and accommodating to non-monetary uses.

The roots of this conflict trace back to earlier debates, such as the 2015-2017 Block Size Wars, which led to forks like Bitcoin Cash. Today's fight echoes those tensions but focuses on data storage rather than transaction throughput.

THE OP_RETURN CONTROVERSY: WHAT IS IT?

At the heart of the dispute is OP_RETURN, a Bitcoin opcode that allows embedding small amounts of arbitrary data in transactions without bloating the UTXO set (the database tracking unspent outputs). Historically, Bitcoin Core limited OP_RETURN data to 80 bytes to discourage "spam"—non-financial data like inscriptions, NFTs, or images that increase blockchain size, raise fees, and burden node operators.

In Bitcoin Core v30, set for release in October 2025, developers plan to relax this limit to approximately 100,000 bytes in the mempool (the staging area for pending transactions). This change aims to let the fee market decide what data gets included, reduce workarounds like out-of-band mining deals, and support innovations such as tokenized assets or decentralized identities.

Bitcoin Knots, however, retains the 80-byte limit as an anti-spam filter, positioning itself as a defender of Bitcoin's core identity as peer-to-peer electronic cash, not a general-purpose data storage layer. Knots users argue that expanding OP_RETURN invites chain bloat, higher node-running costs, and potential legal risks (e.g., hosting illegal content like CSAM).

This isn't a new issue—debates over spam intensified with Ordinals in 2023-2024—but v30 has amplified it, leading to accusations of sabotage and community fragmentation.

KEY ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

The divide boils down to philosophy: Should Bitcoin prioritize monetary sovereignty and low-cost node operation, or embrace flexibility and market-driven innovation?

• Bitcoin Core's Position: Proponents argue the change promotes neutrality, as nodes shouldn't arbitrarily censor "valid" transactions that pay fees. They claim filters are ineffective long-term, and removing limits improves fee estimation, block propagation, and reduces miner centralization risks from out-of-band deals. Critics of Knots say it's poorly maintained and that the debate is overblown noise. Developers like Gloria Zhao emphasize pragmatic engineering over rigid ideology.

• Bitcoin Knots' Position: Supporters, including Dashjr and mining pools like Ocean Mining, see the expansion as a betrayal that turns Bitcoin into a "generic database" for shitcoins. They prioritize node sovereignty—the ability for users to filter unwanted data—and argue that Core's move signals permissiveness toward spam, discouraging node running and centralizing control among fee-profiting miners. Knots is framed as a "protest vote" for decentralization, with tools like "Ban Knots" emerging to enforce compatibility preferences.

WHY IS THIS HAPPENING NOW? 

The timing aligns with Bitcoin's post-2024 halving maturity, ETF inflows, and growing enterprise interest, which have amplified debates over its identity. Core's push reflects a shift toward accommodating layer-2 solutions and data-heavy applications, possibly influenced by developers with ties to inscription projects or VC-backed ecosystems. Knots' rise stems from distrust in Core's governance—accusations of authoritarianism, like locking GitHub discussions or dismissing community input as "spam."

Broader factors include:

• Cultural Shift: Post-ETF boom, more Bitcoiners view Core as elitist, prioritizing miners over nodes.

• Economic Incentives: Spam boosts miner fees but burdens nodes, highlighting tensions between short-term profits and long-term decentralization.

• Governance Vacuum: Without a formal process, changes rely on rough consensus, leading to social media battles and tools like DDoS-like attacks on nodes.

As one observer noted, "Core is signaling permissiveness," potentially opening doors to rollups or other scaling solutions that could insert intermediaries.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS 

• Node Migration: Knots adoption continues to climb, with tools like Ban Knots v1.1.0 released to disconnect incompatible nodes.

• Public Drama: Influencers like Michael Saylor have been questioned on their understanding, while open letters and bets proliferate on X.

• Technical Escalations: Reports of bandwidth attacks on Knots nodes and platform bans for critics.

• Community Tools: Scripts and configs for running Knots on platforms like OpenSUSE and Umbrel.

No hard fork is imminent—Bitcoin's proof-of-work follows the longest chain—but sustained Knots growth (20-30%) could force Core concessions.

IMPLICATIONS FOR BITCOIN'S FUTURE

This "war" tests Bitcoin's resilience. A Knots victory could reinforce its role as digital gold, but risks splintering the network. Core's path might enable innovation but at the cost of higher barriers for node runners, potentially leading to centralization. For users, the advice is clear: Run your own node to "vote" with your software choice. As the v30 release nears, watch for more drama—this could shape Bitcoin for decades.

Disclaimer: This article is meant for general information purposes only and is not investment advice. Investment in cryptocurrency is very risky.

#WeOn