Core spam timeline

[PepeLapiu]

In this thread, I will post a timeline showing the degradation of core into spamware and away from bitcoin as sound money.

If you guys have more items you think are relevent, post it in comments please.

Feb. 2022 - Core changes the documentation on Github. The description of "Bitcoin as  an experimental digital currency that enables instant payments to anyone, anywhere in the world." is changed. All mentions of bitcoin as money or currency have been removed.
source: https://youtu.be/ON8gnCYjd7gm

Early 2023 - The first ordinals appear on the bitcoin blockchain. Had core implemented a simple filter to filter out ordinals in the core v.25 version, over 95% of the nodes today would be filtering out this nonsense.

Sep 4 2023 - Luke Dashjr submits a pull request. Effectively a way to filter out ordinals. It is rejected as too controversial. Had core implemented this filter in their next release, over 80% of the nodes would be running this filter today.
source: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408/commits

May 8 2024 - In a podcast, lead core maintainer Gloria Zhao says she doesn't think it's productive to discuss if jpegs in the chain are good or bad. This indicates she doesn't really have any objection to posting jpegs on the bitcoin blockchain.
source: https://youtu.be/VsUyjFkkp4E

May 2025 - A pull request to remove the op_return limit completely is submitted. The main argument why this is needed is to offer a less harmful albeit more expensive way to post arbitrary data on chain by reducing the amount of fake pubkey transactions. When some suggest that adding more options to spam, that just brings in more spam. And so if the goal is to incintivize spammers to use op_return instead of other ways, we should implement filters on other ways to spam. The suggestion is ignored.
source: https://mirror.b10c.me/bitcoin-bitcoin/32406/

June 2025: Core releases a statement about the op_return filter controversy. In it they explain: "Knowingly refusing to relay transactions that miners would include in blocks anyway forces users into alternate communication channels, undermining the above goals."
This shows you core doesn't really have a problem with spam of any kind. They don't think that miners filling their blocks with 30% of absolute crap is a problem, because miners accept a fee for it.
According to core, the problem is that nodes might filter spam, and not cater to the miners. If you run a node, you are the problem unless you bend to the miners needs.
source: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2025/06/06/relay-statement/

Oct 7 2025 - Core dev Antoine Poinsot on a pod reveals that the existing spammers will not switch from fake pubkeys to op_return as it's 4x more expensive. And the change will not do anything about UTXO bloat. In other words, the op_return filter change is just creating a new use case for spammers on bitcoin.
source: https://youtu.be/PQN-ASAR95U

Oct 15 2025 - By now core lost 20% of the nodes to Knots. And core Spamware v30 is released. V30 allows users to configure the filter as they please but default max op_return data is set at 100,000 bytes, or 1250x it's previous setting. Somehow core doesn't think this is too controversial. Most notable changes:
1- datacarriersize is increased to 100,000 by default, which effectively uncaps the limit (as the maximum transaction size limit will be hit first).
2- multiple data carrier (OP_RETURN) outputs in a transaction are now permitted for relay and mining.
source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5562380.0

Original post: https://bitcoinknotsforum.com/showthread.php?tid=2&pid=3#pid3

[ABCbits]

If you guys have more items you think are relevent, post it in comments please.

Based on your view towards OP_RETURN, check https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.9.0#opreturn-and-data-in-the-block-chain.

Early 2023 - The first ordinals appear on the bitcoin blockchain.

The date should be late 2022, see https://ordinals.com/inscription/0.

Oct 15 2025 - By now core lost 20% of the nodes to Knots. And core Spamware v30 is released. V30 allows users to configure the filter as they please but default max op_return data is set at 100,000 bytes, or 1250x it's previous setting. Somehow core doesn't think this is too controversial. Most notable changes:
1- datacarriersize is increased to 100,000 by default, which effectively uncaps the limit (as the maximum transaction size limit will be hit first).
2- multiple data carrier (OP_RETURN) outputs in a transaction are now permitted for relay and mining.
source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5562380.0

Despite the wording, actually it's possible to include TX that contain multiple OP_RETURN on the block before Bitcoin Core V30 released.

[PepeLapiu]

Oct 15 2025 - By now core lost 20% of the nodes to Knots. And core Spamware v30 is released. V30 allows users to configure the filter as they please but default max op_return data is set at 100,000 bytes, or 1250x it's previous setting. Somehow core doesn't think this is too controversial. Most notable changes:
1- datacarriersize is increased to 100,000 by default, which effectively uncaps the limit (as the maximum transaction size limit will be hit first).
2- multiple data carrier (OP_RETURN) outputs in a transaction are now permitted for relay and mining.
source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5562380.0

Despite the wording, actually it's possible to include TX that contain multiple OP_RETURN on the block before Bitcoin Core V30 released.

This is misleading. Filters are not censorship. Filters do not prevent you from sending a tx that gets filtered out.

If a filter could completely prevent you from sending a consensus valid transaction, that would constitute censorship. Filters have been used since 2009. Yet nobody ever complained about censorship until this year when core v.30 spaware edition decided to blow up the op_return limit. Any time now, they are likely to tell you 80 bytes op_return filters are racist and homophobic.

Think of a filter as a speed bump for spammers. It doesn't stop the spammer from driving on the road at any speed he wants, it just incentives the speeder to slow down.

It was always possible to send an op_return with more than 80 bytes of data. It was always possible to send multiple op_returns per tx. Just like it's always possible that someone will speed up even if you put up speed cameras and speed bumps.

Saying filters don't work because someone ignored it is as stupid as saying the speed bump doesn't work because someone ignored the speed bump and sped up anyways.

[cr1776]

In a decentralized, permission less system one person's spam is another person's transaction.  There is a ton of technical, non-FUD-like information out there as to why filters are a bad idea, but the kool-aid is cool and tasty.  Prunable data vs non-prunable is a huge cost to every node if it is often used for long periods with for example. 

"Saying filters don't work because someone ignored it is as stupid as saying the speed bump doesn't work because someone ignored the speed bump and sped up anyways." One question is: once you have the tools to filter transactions how long until governments somewhere want a specific type of transaction filter and the answer is not long. 

In a distributed permissionless system like bitcoin, anyone is free to run whatever client they want and try to convince others to do so too.  I just don't believe that calling some people's transactions "spam" adds much to the discussion.  :-)   I don't use what people are calling "spam" myself, but have run a node since mid 2010 (except 2 months in early 2011) and would prefer to have the better solution technically vs one based on non-technical (IMO) arguments.  Luke seems to be sincere, but since he got involved around half a year after I did, he's been very reactionary (again IMO).

[PepeLapiu]

In a decentralized, permission less system one person's spam is another person's transaction.

False. In a decentralized permissionless MONETARY system, any non monetary transaction is spam.

The world has a huge monetary problem. Bitcoin solves that. The world does not have a problem with dickbutt jpeg hosting services. There are plenty of shitcoins out there that will cater to your retarded rare sats, runes, and jpegs degenerate shitcoinery.

Segwit and Taproot were implemented to help make bitcoin better money. If anyone had told us Segwit and Taproot would create data hosting cloud services on our nodes, we would have rejected these upgrades.

One question is: once you have the tools to filter transactions how long until governments somewhere want a specific type of transaction filter and the answer is not long. 

You are grossly misunderstanding how filters work:

- Filters have been used since the first days of bitcoin. The op_return filter in question has been around for over 11 years. Yet nobody until 5 months ago ever claimed that it causes censorship, or that it could eventually devolve into government censorship.

- Filters require at least 80% node adoption to be effective in this currently highly centralized mining system. Good luck convincing 80% of the nodes to implement government ban lists.

- Filters are not censorship. Imagine mining was a car race, so filters would be a sort of speed bump that automatically pops up only for miners who put spam in their blocks. If I'm the only one running a filter, that speed bump will feel like a grain of rice under the miner's tires. You need at least 80% adoption for a filter to be effective.

- A filter can not block your transaction anymore than a speed bump that only pops up whenyou speed can ban you from driving.

.