~1026-byte OP_RETURN ASCII as non-standard by MARA

[idlebg]

i love when op_return is used for ascii art
https://mempool.space/tx/d3654198ee9fb043271df31071708d720da640a3c0c8498c41de4061fe58f7a2
https://i.ibb.co/jvdTQB2D/Screenshot-200.jpg https://i.ibb.co/8LcTtCFq/Screenshot-199.jpg https://i.ibb.co/0VKqNZ0C/Screenshot-198.jpg https://i.ibb.co/fYGyyLry/Screenshot-197.jpg https://i.ibb.co/twB7875n/Screenshot-194.jpg
Nothing that special, but I noticed this one and two others like it were 'slipped' by MARA. The weird part is they are all "Non-Standard" because the OP_RETURN is huge... each one is around 1026 bytes of text.

So my question is, is MARA running a new v.30 build already? Or have they just been allowing non-standard OP_RETURNs bigger than the 80-byte limit for a while now as non-standard transactions?

And if so why are all the wars about the limit of OP_RETURN?
Dont get me wrong, i hate nft and this btc slop since day 1!!!
for that kind of byte size, I was able to inscribe this junk using "other" known methods: https://ordinals.com/address/1KURviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieZDpE 😂😇


In the end, I still can't figure out the "wars" over the OP_RETURN limit. Creating junk on-chain (like the one I did) has been a thing for years now. A higher OP_RETURN limit isn't going to suddenly make people upload "wtf content" to the blockchain... we've had that ability for ages.

[idlebg]

also correct me if i am wrong .. but with or without the op_return limit...
if we have 4MB per block

Code:

Daily and yearly growth rates:
Blocks per day: 144.0
Growth per day: 576.0 MB (144 * 4 MB)
Growth per year: ~205.45 GB
Total Ledger Size by 2035 (4 MB block)
Current Ledger Size: 791.16 GB (as of October 2025)

Projected Growth: From today until January 1, 2035 (3,358 days):

3,358 days * 576 MB/day = 1,934,208 MB

1,934,208 MB / 1024 = 1,888.88 GB of new data

Estimated Total Size by 2035: 791.16 GB (current) + 1,888.88 GB (new growth) = 2,680.03 GB (or 2.62 TB)

Ledger Growth from 2035 to 2045 (4 MB block)
For the 10-year period from 2035 to 2045 (3,653 days), the ledger would grow by an additional 2,054.81 GB (or 2.01 TB).

So no matter the op_return limit by 2035 we will have 2-3TB ledger anyway.

and the limit of op_return is not stopping the bad actors from creating crap on the chain if they want to anyway?
still running knots 29.2 and core 29.0 separately but sadly i dont see 30.0 doing any harm to something already available when it comes to spamming the ledger

[Satofan44]

So my question is, is MARA running a new v.30 build already? Or have they just been allowing non-standard OP_RETURNs bigger than the 80-byte limit for a while now as non-standard transactions?

Lifting the OP RETURN limit is so trivial that someone without coding skills could do it with the help of AI. If they have mined any non standard OP_RETURNs in the past then they have been running a custom patch.

And if so why are all the wars about the limit of OP_RETURN?

1. Misinformation.
2. Luke-jr capitalizing on misinformation to regain some relevance for himself and Knots.
3. Paid campaigns.

In the end, I still can't figure out the "wars" over the OP_RETURN limit. Creating junk on-chain (like the one I did) has been a thing for years now. A higher OP_RETURN limit isn't going to suddenly make people upload "wtf content" to the blockchain... we've had that ability for ages.

There are many other ways to create the junk that are more detrimental, so OP_RETURN is the least of our problems.

So no matter the op_return limit by 2035 we will have 2-3TB ledger anyway.

Sounds about right. It isn't that bad at all I'd say, especially considering the blockchain sizes of shitcoins. I wonder if 5-10TB SSDs will be the standard by then.

and the limit of op_return is not stopping the bad actors from creating crap on the chain if they want to anyway?
still running knots 29.2 and core 29.0 separately but sadly i dont see 30.0 doing any harm to something already available when it comes to spamming the ledger

1. The OP_RETURN limit doesn't do anything.
2. Running knots does not prevent OP_RETURN transactions in any significant way.
3. There has been no significant change with the network since the release of Core v30.

[mcdouglasx]

I suppose that mara splitstream in its FAQ makes it clear: "Slipstream is a service for directly submitting large or non-standard Bitcoin transactions to Marathon. It provides sophisticated users with a simple web interface and a transparent process for adding complex Bitcoin transactions to the blockchain. If your transaction meets Marathon’s minimum fee threshold and conforms to the consensus rules of Bitcoin, Marathon adds it to its mempool for mining."

so it is understood that Mara ignores the op-return debate and does what he wants (or what suits him) with this, the point is clear, anyone with the ability to mine his own block can do so if he wishes and the other miners will accept it and validate it as long as it complies with the rules of the bitcoin consensus, the debate whether it is good or bad for the network or the blockchain has no influence here, in short, business is business.

[pooya87]

Aaaah Marathon Digital Holdings, the same company who has been censoring bitcoin transactions at least for 4 years (since 2021) to comply with the arbitrary censorship orders of an authoritarian regime that doesn't have any legitimacy itself

[MusaMohamed]

Aaaah Marathon Digital Holdings, the same company who has been censoring bitcoin transactions at least for 4 years (since 2021) to comply with the arbitrary censorship orders of an authoritarian regime that doesn't have any legitimacy itself

This is a mining pool with bad reputation and history of attempts of censorsing Bitcoin transactions.

In 2021, a new North American mining pool called Marathon that announced that they plan to filter out transactions that are not OFAC compliant.
It's a Marathon Digital Holdings press release on this filter in order to comply with the US. regulations.

[Ucy]

The transactions and others like that are non issue as long as:
* they remains light data
* they do not happen frequently thereby preventing the use of the Bitcoin Blockchain for its main purpose which is financial transactions
* The images or large data are difficult to notice, seen, found and accessed.



It's like having a decentralized post offices for sending letters amongst peer with maximum weight (in paper-weight) per user/transport, but some choose to send plastic cups and other irrelevant objects by melting or disassembling them and sending them in pieces at the maximum weight per transport. This is ok as long as the object has become light enough to meet the maximum weight per transport, the object is not sent frequently to prevent the use of the system for its main purpose which is letter sending, the object can't be easily accessed by other users.
This is unlike the use of the system for sending a whole cup or object per user/transport.

Bitcoin transaction per user/transaction has to be light enough and mostly financial otherwise it goes against the data size limit and main purpose of the Bitcoin Blockchain