Nick Szabo, renowned for his work in computer science and cryptography, is stepping into the ongoing debate between Knots and Core. He warns that this shift could lead to more non-financial—and potentially questionable—data being permanently recorded on the blockchain.
The discussion surrounding Bitcoin Core v30 has been reignited by Nick Szabo’s recent comments on social media. A growing number of users are favoring Bitcoin Knots over Bitcoin Core v30 due to its enhanced user control, superior spam filters, and adaptable policy settings—features that were removed from Core v30 for neutrality and streamlined code.
On October 1st, Szabo shared his insights in a series of posts. “The increase in OP_RETURN allowance is highly publicized and encourages more non-financial data on Bitcoin,” he noted. “Although applications can already store data elsewhere within Bitcoin, this change signals an invitation for additional data without safeguards allowing archival node operators to safely remove illegal content they might be held accountable for.”
Core v30 eliminated the traditional 80-byte limit on OP_RETURN, enabling limitless data storage within transactions while also phasing out certain mempool filtering tools. Supporters of Knots argue this could flood the blockchain with non-financial information or even unlawful content. Advocates of Core maintain that the 80-byte limit was never a true protective measure—asserting determined users would always find ways to insert such data onto the blockchain regardless.
A week after his initial remarks on October 1st, Szabo reiterated his stance by advising users to temporarily switch to Knots instead of upgrading to Core v30 as a precautionary measure until further notice. While many supported him, some critics challenged Szabo’s perspective which sparked renewed discussions within the community.
“I suggest familiarizing yourself with Knots before making any decisions,” software developer Jameson Lopp replied skeptically towards Szabo’s legal interpretation; Thomas Rossi countered saying judges consider practicality when enforcing their rulings adding nothing significant has happened regarding existing problematic bytes embedded into Blockchain yet.”
Conversely others sided with Szabo suggesting alternatives like sticking with version 29 rather than adopting version thirty amid concerns about changes introduced by Knot’s developers asking whether anyone from core team requested evaluation pause prior advancing potentially risky updates?
This division between proponents continues deepening fueled partly due warnings issued prompting factions among financial purists versus those emphasizing simplicity neutrality prioritization creating distinct camps around topic